KirStang

I think California got this one wrong. (Maybe more knowledgeable 4th Amendment guys can chime in here). Normally, your web browsing history, who you call, who you have emailed, bank account information are accessible and NOT protected because the citizen has not manifested a legitimate subjective interest in privacy.

The theory that the supreme court has adopted is that because you 'share' your information with banks, ISPs, phone companies, you are disavowing an interest in privacy since you're sharing that with a third party. (Stupid, right? But it is established precedent.)

Where I become concerned is that, in this case, the cell phone was NOT something like a 'bump underneath the suspect's jacket' or a 'lump in a cigarette case'--searches of these items have been justified on officer safety. However, here, the cell phone should have been more akin to a 'bag that the suspect was carrying.' Police had every right to *SEIZE* the item, but not *SEARCH* the item, as the deputy did here (case law's also pretty well established on this point).

=================================

*ETA* Whoops. No. I got this wrong. I just pulled up my notes.

The 'wing-span rule' permits police to search the immediate 'grab-area' around an arrested suspect, even within a suspects home (again, officer safety). The Supreme Court has said in dicta, that packages within a suspects 'wing-span' are searchable. BUT: see U.S. v. Gorski which said that search of a book bag in the wingspan of an arrestee is NOT permissible absent exigent circumstances.

__________________