CA Supreme Court: "No Warrant Needed to Search Cell Phones"

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by TigerLily24

Wow. Just wow.


""The cell phone was an item (of personal property) on (Diaz's) person at the time of his arrest and during the administrative processing at the police station," the justices wrote. "Because the cell phone was immediately associated with defendant’s person, (police were) entitled to inspect its contents without a warrant." "

Court: No warrant needed to search cell phone - The Red Tape Chronicles - msnbc.com (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/court-cops-can-search-cell-phone-without-warrant.html - broken link)

this is what you get from the liberals (aka progressives) fascists

the air waves are government controlled..therefore 'your' cell phone is government property

BTW, under "probable cause", the authorities had the right to search the questionable person and all his possessions..to include a strip search if necessary


.
.
also a phone could be a taser
http://www.tbotech.com/cellphonestungun.htm

and cell phone guns

http://cellular.co.za/phones/gunphone/gun-phone.htm

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by stillkit

You neglected to comment on the "preserve evidence" part of that post.

All they have to do to preserve the evidence on the phone is to take possession of it. They should be able to acquire a search warrant to examine the contents at a later date. I don't think that when we carry a phone, that we agree to legally self-incriminate ourselves. But if the police don't need a warrant, then by carrying a phone that is what we are potentially doing.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

this is what you get from the liberals (aka progressives) fascists

the air waves are government controlled..therefore 'your' cell phone is government property

BTW, under "probable cause", the authorities had the right to search the questionable person and all his possessions..to include a strip search if necessary

Under the Patriot Act, the police can do a lot more than that. All it takes is for some bureaucrat to say, "That person is a "suspected" terrorist or terrorist sympathizer" and the game is on.

Is that alright with you? If so, would your sympathies be any less if the person in question here was of Middle East extraction?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Why? Do you object to living under the rule of law?

I does when law exists above that of its reasonable intent. When the law begins to dictate above that which it was designed to remedy, then the law stops serving us as we begin to serve the law.

Reasonable search and seizure relevant to these case laws pertain the legislative intent of them. That is, an immediate search of person is reasonable for consideration of arrest under the pretense of concern for safety, the securing of evidence relevant to the arrest, etc...

If you are arrested for instance for drinking and driving and they search your cell phone, there is no reasonable position to probable cause. It does not pertain to safety, it does not pertain to the relevance of the offense, the search is then under the grounds of the original legislative intent, leaving the search as unwarranted and without proper cause.

The laws and their authority exist for a proper reason, without proper reason, we simply serve the letter of the law, to which the system then becomes the criminal offender of an individuals rights.

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Why? Do you object to living under the rule of law?

No more than Rosa Parks.