SCOTUS: warrentless searches of cell phones

[DJofSD]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/29/supreme-court-to-consider-if-cell-phones-may-be-searched-without-warrant/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is considering whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant.

The court's latest foray into the issue of privacy in the digital age involves two cases being argued Tuesday that arose from searches of phones carried by a gang member and a drug dealer. Police looked through their cellphones after taking the suspects into custody and found evidence that led to their convictions and lengthy prison terms.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that police can empty a suspect's pockets and examine whatever they find to ensure officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the searches, say cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

Passwords, encryption and other measures will become more important.

WWSD?

[Tom]

No-brainer here.
They do not have the right to open mail you have on you, they have no right to your phone records. I agree, safety and checking pockets, but comparing a cell phone to a weapon is ridiculous.

[DJofSD]

I don't think it needs to taken as the same as a weapon.

What if you were stopped as a suspected bank robber and you had a piece of paper with a layout of the interior of a bank that was just robbed? Substitute the piece of paper with a smart phone with an email containing such a map, then what?

[Robert Fischer]

When privacies, protections, and rights are stripped away in the name of fighting-evil (such as the "war on drugs"), you always have to anticipate that these evils are being presented as a kind of propaganda.

Do criminals and bad people hide as much of their evil as possible in "private"? Of course! Obviously!
But that doesn't mean we should strip away privacies.

[HUSKER55]

what is on a cell phone that you are ashamed of? :confused:

[boxcar]

I don't think it needs to taken as the same as a weapon.

What if you were stopped as a suspected bank robber and you had a piece of paper with a layout of the interior of a bank that was just robbed? Substitute the piece of paper with a smart phone with an email containing such a map, then what?

At some point the issue of "probable cause" should be the overarching consideration in these kinds of situations.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

what is on a cell phone that you are ashamed of? :confused:
Why do you equate privacy and protection to things which are shameful?

It used to be things about your personal life was consider private and personal, and, any time any one would ask/pry, the typical response was 'none of your business.'

Let's say you are traveling to your tax preparers with all of your personal financial data when you get pulled over for a traffic violation. Do you want the police to search those boxes of files? Is there a legitimate reason for them to do so? Why would a laptop/tablet/smart phone be different?

[Tom]

what is on a cell phone that you are ashamed of? :confused:

It is no one's business, least of all a corrupt, dictatorial government.

[TJDave]

what is on a cell phone that you are ashamed of? :confused:

If my profession were crime and I was good at it, then absolutely nothing. ;)

[JustRalph]

what is on a cell phone that you are ashamed of? :confused:

They are interested in your contact list

Then you have to remember emails come to your phone.

Photos can be evidence of several things. You can actually get location and date and time info from photos too

Texts are huge, because people are stupid

[mostpost]

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is considering whether police may search cellphones found on people they arrest without first getting a warrant.
My response is a qualified no. In this case the suspects were already in custody. Why would it have been so difficult to obtain a warrant? In my opinion the information on a cell phone is more protected than something on a slip of paper in someone's pocket. The expectation of privacy is greater.

I look at it this way. Scotus ruled that the police have the right to search a suspects pockets to assure their own safety and that of the public. If they find a piece of paper and a cellphone and place them side by side on a table, the contents of the note are in plain sight. Any information on the cellphone is hidden from sight. and can accessed only by opening the phone.
Any evidence found should be non admissible in court. I hope they have a strong case without it.

The only exception I would admit is if the police had knowledge of a threat to public safety and opening the phone would alleviate that threat.

[DJofSD]

I'm not sure I understand the logic of being in plain sight v. having to open the device. What if the information on paper is in a notebook that is closed? It is not in plain sight but easily accessed by opening the notebook. How is that different from flipping open a cell or touching a few icons on a smart phone?

[Tom]

I'm agreeing with mostie! :faint:

[TJDave]

I look at it this way. Scotus ruled that the police have the right to search a suspects pockets to assure their own safety and that of the public. If they find a piece of paper and a cellphone and place them side by side on a table, the contents of the note are in plain sight. Any information on the cellphone is hidden from sight. and can accessed only by opening the phone.


What if they had a wallet that snapped closed. Could they look inside?