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.
If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
If the law already says that police can search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, the fact that the possession is a cellphone should not matter. The laws shouldn't apply different just because people change the way they carry things, i.e., by changing format to digital.
I think the only people contesting this one will be people who know they have something to hide, or want to leave open the option of being a miscreant with impunity.
If the law already says that police can search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, the fact that the possession is a cellphone should not matter. The laws shouldn't apply different just because people change the way they carry things, i.e., by changing format to digital.
I think the only people contesting this one will be people who know they have something to hide, or want to leave open the option of being a miscreant with impunity.
So does that mean when police show up at your house with a warrant for only the bedroom, they can grab what they want from any other room too? What if your phone is in the kitchen? Can they go get it? What about if your phone isn't on your person, but in the passenger seat or glove box of the car, fair game there too or only if it is in your pocket?
So does that mean when police show up at your house with a warrant for only the bedroom, they can grab what they want from any other room too?
What it means is that if there is LAW X, you cannot change the color of your socks to avoid being subject to LAW X.
What it means is that if there is LAW X, you cannot avoid being subject to LAW X by crossing your fingers and toes.
What it means is that if there is LAW X, LAW X doesn't go away because it is your birthday.
The law regarding searching personal items is not in dispute. It is well-established law. The only matter being decided here is whether format matters. It shouldn't.
I'm not sure how more simplistically I could explain it.
If the law already says that police can search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, the fact that the possession is a cellphone should not matter. The laws shouldn't apply different just because people change the way they carry things, i.e., by changing format to digital.
I think the only people contesting this one will be people who know they have something to hide, or want to leave open the option of being a miscreant with impunity.
It's obviously not so cut and dry or else judges (not you) have been split on this topic.
Quote:
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
It's obviously not so cut and dry or else judges (not you) have been split on this topic.
I see nothing wrong with judges thinking about it. Judges have sometimes made decisions clearly grounded in aversion to technology (the SCOTUS doesn't even allow cameras in the court), decisions that are eventually reversed when they (or their successors) realize the error they made earlier. (It is an "error" because the facts of the matter didn't change - just the understanding of the technology changed.) And the basis for that was what I mentioned earlier: Someone should be be allowed to legitimately avoid being subject to a law by changing a format.
What it means is that if there is LAW X, you cannot change the color of your socks to avoid being subject to LAW X.
What it means is that if there is LAW X, you cannot avoid being subject to LAW X by crossing your fingers and toes.
What it means is that if there is LAW X, LAW X doesn't go away because it is your birthday.
The law regarding searching personal items is not in dispute. It is well-established law. The only matter being decided here is whether format matters. It shouldn't.
I'm not sure how more simplistically I could explain it.
Sure, they can take what's on your possession, but can they look inside? Your car is in your possession when you get pulled over, do the police have the right to rifle through it without a warrant because they feel like it? What would the probable cause be? What would the probable cause be for going through the phone if you are arrested for a disorderly conduct misdemeanor? I can see if there was probable cause, like you got caught prank calling 911, or calling in terroristic threats, etc. You think if you got caught with weed, the police should still have the right to rifle through your personal business? For what? To find OTHER things to charge you with if they find them? This is a VERY slippery slope which amounts to fishing for something to charge you with that has nothing at all to do with the reason you were arrested. BTW, you didn't even come close to answering my questions, all you did was throw a childish tantrum.
A clear ruling is of course needed - law enforcement should know.
From the top of my head, I don't see the big difference between acting on information from a legally seized pocketbook as opposed to a legally seized cellphone. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though...
Sure, they can take what's on your possession, but can they look inside?
Again, the existing law as it pertains to other personal items with you is not at issue in this case. The only thing being questioned is whether a cellphone gets some sort of exemption from the existing law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
A clear ruling is of course needed - law enforcement should know.
So for that reason alone it is good that the administration is pursuing this with the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
From the top of my head, I don't see the big difference between acting on information from a legally seized pocketbook as opposed to a legally seized cellphone.
Precisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though...
I suppose I am as well. I fear though that we're just going to see a lot of objections to the existing law as it pertains to other items, rather than anyone presenting a cogent, well-founded, legal argument as to why a cellphone should be treated differently from a notebook.
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.
