Slippery slope...

[Yonivore]

Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/warrantless-phone-searches/)


California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest.

The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person’s mobile phone — which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons’ e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled.
I'm not sure why the fundamental protection against such searches would need state legislation to protect but, as several in here will tell you, I'm no legal scholar.

[ElNono]

Because State police is subject to, among other things, state law?

[Cry Havoc]

Because State police is subject to, among other things, state law?

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if they arrest you somehow the phone is sacrosanct?

Yoni, I realize that its Jerry Brown that vetoed it so in the spirit of DeToqueville's view on Americans you just follow orders but give me a break.

I don't know if you are familiar with arrest procedures but typically they search the shit out of everything. The phone being exempt would be a gross exception and compeltely arbitrary. Your pockets, trunk, house or anything else is not excluded.

i really wish you would at least try and think for yourself.

[Yonivore]

I don't know if you are familiar with arrest procedures but typically they search the shit out of everything. The phone being exempt would be a gross exception and compeltely arbitrary. Your pockets, trunk, house or anything else is not excluded.
Not without consent, probable cause, or a warrant issued by a judge based on an officer affidavit of probable cause.

If you're arrested for drunk driving and have a locked brief case in the back seat, the arresting officer has no probable cause or authority to open the case without your consent. I'm not sure why a cell phone would be different.

You probably need a better defense attorney!

[ElNono]

If you're being arrested, probable cause is implicit. You should know this.

The phone isn't locked. If it is, then the officer then needs your consent.

[LnGrrrR]

Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/warrantless-phone-searches/)


I'm not sure why the fundamental protection against such searches would need state legislation to protect but, as several in here will tell you, I'm no legal scholar.

Since when the fuck do you care about warrants? :lol

[ElNono]

FWIW, the bill was approved with 70-0 in the assembly and 32-4 in the state senate.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see the veto overriden (only need 2/3 of each chamber)

[Wild Cobra]

FWIW, the bill was approved with 70-0 in the assembly and 32-4 in the state senate.

So I wouldn't be surprised to see the veto overriden (only need 2/3 of each chamber)
Hard to say. If it goes to court, do they legislators want to be on the wrong side of a decision?

Now I admit, I am unclear of the standing law in such cases, but once a person is arrested, isn't that grounds to search? I thought it was, and if so, why would a cell phone be different?

[Yonivore]

Hard to say. If it goes to court, do they legislators want to be on the wrong side of a decision?

Now I admit, I am unclear of the standing law in such cases, but once a person is arrested, isn't that grounds to search?
Only if the search is relative to the arrest. For instance, if you're arrested for kidnapping, the police have cause to search your car or house for the victim. If, on the other hand, you're arrested for murder, where the body has already been discovered, they're going to need a warrant to search your home and car for evidence.

I'm not suggesting officers don't find ways around those rules but, those are generally the rules.

A lot of evidence is excluded at trial because police officers bend the rules and discover evidence outside the rules.


I thought it was, and if so, why would a cell phone be different?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I believe a cell phone is an "effect."

Also, unless it's changed, warrants had to be specific about what was believed would be found in a search of a person, house, paper, or effect.

Last I checked, you could refuse consent and force a police officer to seek a warrant before allowing a search of anything belonging to you.

If that's changed, we're further down the slippery slope than I knew.

[ElNono]

Hard to say. If it goes to court, do they legislators want to be on the wrong side of a decision?

What do you mean? The California SCOTUS previous ruling was based on current law. This is new law. Which is exactly why Brown should've refrained from doing anything and let the courts do their job.

[ElNono]

I believe a cell phone is an "effect."

Also, unless it's changed, warrants had to be specific about what was believed would be found in a search of a person, house, paper, or effect.

Last I checked, you could refuse consent and force a police officer to seek a warrant before allowing a search of anything belonging to you.

If that's changed, we're further down the slippery slope than I knew.

We are further down the slippery slope. Under the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, law enforcement only need "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a search on a cell phone, a lower standard than "probable cause" and does not require a warrant.

The same tactic was recently used by the DOJ to obtain a Wikileaks member email correspondence (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576613284007315072.html) from several ISPs without a warrant. The article touches on searches on phones carried out under the same orders.

[xrayzebra]

I believe that the courts have ruled that computers can't be searched
without a warrant. So I cannot see why a phone would be different,
especially a smart phone, which is nothing more than a computer itself.

BUT, evidently the Supreme Court of California has ruled no warrant is
needed, according to the link below, don't know how reliable it is. So
guess I am wrong.

http://www.metafilter.com/99235/Court-No-Warrant-Needed-To-Search-Cell-Phone


Also police are allowed to "inventory" a vehicle after an arrest and any
evidence found while doing the "inventory" is admissible. Of course
you couldn't read the contents of a computer just they fact you
inventoried the computer.