Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
""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)
Amazing, but have seen this coming for some years now. That's why WE should encrypt and lock EVERYTHING electronic you have. It may be a pain, it may take extra time, but it would at least stop or make it harder for them to do.
I have encryption software from France. The company doesn't give the NSA/CIA/FBI the key/backdoor. It can be cracked I'm sure it's only 192 bits, but it will take several days.
I'm not going to comment on whether it's wrong or not, it's new territory. I will say that people who leave a trail are asking for trouble. My mom taught me not to put anything incriminating in writing. We will see how this shakes out.
Its seems the court have rule on warrntless car serach ;perosnal searches and serches immediately sourrounding the arrest before this. I fits on your person and special circumastnces in common in case law.
Nothing new, though I guess until the news comes out of California some people will never notice it. This has been the law in the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) since 2007.
Not suprised or concerned. By using the public air waves you lose the right to avoid self incrimination or privacy.
Where does it say that in the Constitution?
What a joke a pathetic one at that. Post like that is why we dont have privacy anymore. We lost that people need to stop pretending they do and its because of people making excuses for losing it
Not suprised or concerned. By using the public air waves you lose the right to avoid self incrimination or privacy.
The "public airwaves" has nothing whatsoever to do with this decision. If it did, then the cell phones of someone not under arrest would be subject to seizure and search without a warrant. But they're not. Further, cell phones may contain information pertinent to a case even if no call has ever been made with a particular phone, yet such a phone -- which has never used the public airwaves -- would still be subject to seizure and search if found upon an arrestee.
Again, no aspect of this case pertained to public airwaves. Rather, it pertained to allowed searches of arrested individuals, items seized upon said persons, and established caselaw pertaining to closed containers found upon such persons.
The "public airwaves" has nothing whatsoever to do with this decision. If it did, then the cell phones of someone not under arrest would be subject to seizure and search without a warrant. But they're not. Further, cell phones may contain information pertinent to a case even if no call has ever been made with a particular phone, yet such a phone -- which has never used the public airwaves -- would still be subject to seizure and search if found upon an arrestee.
Again, no aspect of this case pertained to public airwaves. Rather, it pertained to allowed searches of arrested individuals, items seized upon said persons, and established caselaw pertaining to closed containers found upon such persons.
Right. That decision is well grounded in case law, also called "precedent." The fact that so few people appreciate the importance of case law in our system of justice doesn't negate it's importance or make things like this "un-Constitutional." There really IS a difference between living under a Napoleanic Code, where everything illegal is clearly spelled out, and under common law, which literally means, "That which came before."
As an example of a precedent applicable to this question, in the case of truck drivers being inspected during the course of their business by government agents, it's long been an established precedent that anything within the drivers reach from his seat can be inspected and searched without a warrant. Under California law, the Court has just ruled that applies to cell phones on the person of someone arrested too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
