• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant

jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If police need a warrant to search someone home then they should need a warrant to search someone's phone. Leave it to the left circuit to make another wrong decision.

Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant
The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.

The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.

The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.

Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.


Read more: Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If police need a warrant to search someone home then they should need a warrant to search someone's phone. Leave it to the left circuit to make another wrong decision.


Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant
The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.

The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.

The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.

Monday's decision allows police "to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person," said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.


Read more: Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant
Click to expand...

I disagree with the ruling as well. But don't try to paint this as a "left-wing" decision. It is much more of a right-wing issue...and if you know anything about the California Supreme Court you would know that it is a right-wing court with most of the justices coming from Republican appointments.

Moreno (the dissent) is the only good one on the court, also the only left-leaning moderate....and the only one appointed by a Democrat.
 
Ikari said:
Yay! Big Brother is going to save us all!
Click to expand...

First person to say "if you haven't done anything wrong..." gets a beating.
 
jamesrage said:
If police need a warrant to search someone home then they should need a warrant to search someone's phone.
Click to expand...

Those are hardly the same thing. We're talking about a search of a cell phone that was seized in the course of a lawful arrest, and thus already in police custody. The dissent's argument is absurd. California law already says that a pack of cigarettes seized in such a manner can be searched. There is no reason why a cell phone should be subject to more protection just because it can carry more data.

This is a legitimate search, and the decision is good law.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Those are hardly the same thing. We're talking about a search of a cell phone that was seized in the course of a lawful arrest, and thus already in police custody. The dissent's argument is absurd. California law already says that a pack of cigarettes seized in such a manner can be searched. There is no reason why a cell phone should be subject to more protection just because it can carry more data.

This is a legitimate search, and the decision is good law.
Click to expand...

If California law violates the constitution then it doesn't what their law says.
 
jamesrage said:
If California law violates the constitution then it doesn't what their law says.
Click to expand...

California law doesn't violate the Constitution, the California courts have interpreted the Constitution correctly that a warrantless search incident to lawful arrest of personal property is allowable. If you think that the California courts have misinterpreted the Constitution, the SCOTUS apparently does not agree with you. I'd be very interested to see your argument that such a search is unlawful; the "cell phones carry lots of data therefore can't be searched" argument used in the left-wing dissent of this case sure doesn't hold water. What is your argument?

Look at the situation: The man was lawfully arrested and his phone was legitimately seized. If the police needed a warrant to search the phone then they would have had no trouble getting one. But that would be a waste of resources, particularly considering that a warrant is not Constitutionally required for such a search. The whole thing is much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:
I am very not okay with this.
 
Imo this current California Supreme Court isn't very tech savvy. Really bad decision. This is a blow against individual liberty.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Imo this current California Supreme Court isn't very tech savvy. Really bad decision. This is a blow against individual liberty.
Click to expand...

It really isn't. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution there is a warrant requirement to search a cell phone of a person who is in lawful custody. Or perhaps you could explain what language the Framers used that gave more protection to a cell phone than a pack of cigarettes.

Goshin said:
I am very not okay with this.
Click to expand...

Why not? I've seen a lot of people complaining about this but so far I have not seen one argument as to what is wrong with this decision. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
It really isn't. Unless you can show me where in the Constitution there is a warrant requirement to search a cell phone of a person who is in lawful custody. Or perhaps you could explain what language the Framers used that gave more protection to a cell phone than a pack of cigarettes.
Click to expand...

A cell phone is no more dangerous to a police officer than is a laptop computer in the possession of the person arrested. Both contain private personal information. A laptop has not been held to be unsearchable without a warrant, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal's analysis in US v. Burgess walks right up to that point. Check out pages 13-20:
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-8053.pdf
 
Last edited:
Hmmm....Lets examine the logic of this for a minute.

Cop pulls someone over.
Cop smells MJ.
Cop asks the driver if he/she may search his/her car.
Person says no.
Canine unit comes and sniffs around the car. Dog gives its indicator that there are drugs present.
Cop now has reasonable cause to search without warrant.
Cop searches car and finds 5lbs of MJ and 3lbs of cocaine.
Person gets arrested.
In the process of being arrested the cop is allowed to: physically search the person, including putting hands inside pockets, and looking inside any containers that may be on the persons being or in the car.
At the police station the person may be strip searched and even checked in the bum hole for any possible hidden items.
Also at the impound lot or police garage or where ever they do it, that persons car is getting and even more thorough examination. Quite possibly even to the point of the car being taken apart piece meal.

So....after all of that do people really think that a persons cell phone should not be subjected to the same intense examination? Just because it might contain even more data? Like a cavity search isn't more intrusive when compared? Seriously, people need to get a grip. If you can't do the time then don't do the friggen crime.
 
Criminals should not be able to hide in plain sight. Some people seem to think so. I am a crime show buff and one thing I know is that cell phones are very valuable in police investigation. In the case of someone getting abducted being able to search a cell phone can quickly lead in the right direction to search for an individual. It is crazy that criminals can go hi tech on us to commit crimes faster and better and we have to rely on antiquated methods to get at the information we need. We really shouldn't elevate things like cell phones to some special category. What if the criminal had a notebook on him? Did we need a warrant to look at that in the course of arresting someone. As many have said in the defense of changing some law or ignoring the Constitution "The founding fathers couldn't have foreseen blah, blah, blah when creating this law blah, blah, blah..." Well we need to change with the times in dealing with crime and criminals. We have to speed things up otherwise we lose a lot of ground to criminals. Yes, it is not going to be to the letter of the law as to what the founding fathers or whatever put in the constitution but then again how long did it take for a letter to reach someone on the other side of the country back when we framed the constitution?
 
Last edited:
IMO, warrants should always be required unless exigent circumstances exist. I don't see why a warrantless search would be necessary to search someone's phone unless there is some indication that the person would be able and likely intends to erase the info.
 
??? said:
IMO, warrants should always be required unless exigent circumstances exist. I don't see why a warrantless search would be necessary to search someone's phone unless there is some indication that the person would be able and likely intends to erase the info.
Click to expand...

Guy has a notebook in his pocket. Is a warrant be required to open and read it?
 
MaggieD said:
Guy has a notebook in his pocket. Is a warrant be required to open and read it?
Click to expand...
Yes. I don't think that's extreme. If there has been an arrest warrant issued, it could also specify types of things that can be searched on the person's body. Otherwise it should simply be seized. I don't like when officers can arrest somebody based on belief of a certain crime, then prosecute him for an unrelated crime based purely on what they find during an incidental search.
 
Last edited:
In this case, the defendant used his cell phone to set up a drug sale with a police informant who was wired. His cell phone was seized and searched because it contained material evidence of conspiracy to commit a felony. In other words, his cell was already known to be part and parcel of a criminal enterprise and the tenet of "reasonable suspicion" was satisfied previous to the search.

In addition, a long established rule called "custodial search" has always been upheld by the courts. If you are arrested and bound for jail, the police can search your possessions to avoid the possibility of a weapon or drugs being brought into incarceration. You've seen it on Cops dozens of times... a woman is arrested and the police go through her purse. The police cannot search your cell for minor violations such as speeding. But the courts have yet to decide on this for felony arrests such as DUI/DWI.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Seriously, people need to get a grip. If you can't do the time then don't do the friggen crime.
Click to expand...

Of course those living in the real world know that the innocent DO get caught up, and you don't have to do a crime to do time.

Far as I'm concerned, the more safeguards to ensure due process the better.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hmmm....Lets examine the logic of this for a minute.

Cop pulls someone over.
Cop smells MJ.
Cop asks the driver if he/she may search his/her car.
Person says no.
Canine unit comes and sniffs around the car. Dog gives its indicator that there are drugs present.
Cop now has reasonable cause to search without warrant.
Cop searches car and finds 5lbs of MJ and 3lbs of cocaine.
Person gets arrested.
In the process of being arrested the cop is allowed to: physically search the person, including putting hands inside pockets, and looking inside any containers that may be on the persons being or in the car.
At the police station the person may be strip searched and even checked in the bum hole for any possible hidden items.
Also at the impound lot or police garage or where ever they do it, that persons car is getting and even more thorough examination. Quite possibly even to the point of the car being taken apart piece meal.

So....after all of that do people really think that a persons cell phone should not be subjected to the same intense examination? Just because it might contain even more data? Like a cavity search isn't more intrusive when compared? Seriously, people need to get a grip. If you can't do the time then don't do the friggen crime.
Click to expand...

In the case you cited, nothing in the cell phone could be relevant to the arrest. They are not going to find MJ or cocaine inside the phone, so what is the purpose of the search. FISHING.

The other searches are relevant to the arrest as those places could be hiding drugs, not the phone.
 
Travelsonic said:
Of course those living in the real world know that the innocent DO get caught up, and you don't have to do a crime to do time.

Far as I'm concerned, the more safeguards to ensure due process the better.
Click to expand...

And those living in the real world would know that the chances of this happening is far less than you seem to imply.
 
Mason66 said:
In the case you cited, nothing in the cell phone could be relevant to the arrest. They are not going to find MJ or cocaine inside the phone, so what is the purpose of the search. FISHING.

The other searches are relevant to the arrest as those places could be hiding drugs, not the phone.
Click to expand...

And what if the cell phone has schematics showing exactly where the drugs in the car is? Or shows drug routes? And of course the cop is fishing. That is thier job.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And those living in the real world would know that the chances of this happening is far less than you seem to imply.
Click to expand...

[citation needed] - then again, how likely or not doesn't change the fact that it happens. Your statement was made in a fashion that implied absolute truth, and if I remember correctly, it doesn't require much to prove a statement / claim made in absolute false - one contradiction mininum.
 
Last edited:
I think this was a very good ruling, because it allowed officers on the scene to decide whether there might be evidence of a crime on the person's phone. The biggest problem I see with this ruling was that it didn't deal with the problems we have with smartphones; they're essentially mobile laptops. As such, I think the same restrictions to viewing laptops need to apply to cellphones. If there is a file in plainview on the phone's screen, or on the phone itself (like pornographic pictures on the phone's hard drive), it should be allowable. But, the officer can't start searching the internet and looking up sites that the person accessed through his/her phone. Basically, allow officer's to access the cell phone under the scope of the plain view doctrine.

I think that would be the most reasonable conclusion anyone could expect regarding cell phone searches.
 
I don't even have to read the story to know that you're misreading.

Why do you waste our time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom