Warrant? We don't need no stinkin' warrants!
 

I don't think it unfair, but I do think that it goes above and beyond if it extends into voicemails that you must dial into and access via a PIN even if that PIN is memorized or authorized by the phone itself. I would say then that if you saved your password onto your email or even your IMs all that becomes evidence that can be used against you.

Logging into your home computer or work PC via your smartphone? Is that still within their bounds?

I already lock my cellphone from prying eyes and I'm not compelled to have to give them my password to unlock my phone. I've already got software for remote wiping. I'll have to have a document for my lawyer who can do the remote wipe.

Is it too far? Is it just right? Where do you think the line gets drawn?

I don't think they should have access to your phone. There is simply too much information available on phones today that makes it, to me, a step too far.

If you want to see my emails, text messages, etc. (not to mention all of the other things there) you should have to get a warrant.

Keep your phone locked.

"I'm afraid I can't remember my phone's password right now, officer. Do you have a warrant?"

I think this sort of thing deserves a warrant. They need a warrant to go into your office but not your smart phone pocket computer? Is it because it's so tiny and on your person? You know 16gb or 32gb can hold a lot of information.

If you don't need a warrant for that, then why do you need a warrant for your home?

Is it "just data"?

I was thinking about moving to San Jose but now.......

Call me out as a primitive, if you have it on your person when you're arrested, it's theirs to do with as they please, including using "professional" hackers to get whatever they want out of "your" devices. Who could this harm without something to hide? NOBODY.

its a slippery slope- for every right we give up for our "protection" we loose some freedom and give the unscrupulous more chances to abuse us.... sure you may think you have nothing to hide, but who knows how something you think is innocent may be misconstrued or misunderstood.... My business partner, a veteran police officer, whom I have known for over 20 years now, is adamant about the fact that if detained, you should give the authorities NOTHING- because you never know who will decide to nail you to the wall to further their career, or just because they can... not all cops, prosecutors or investigators are good people, and why should you do anything to put yourself in potential jeopardy?

I'm in favor of it only if the phone relates directly to the crime. If you are arrested for OWI, I see no reason to access the cell phone. On the other hand, if you are arrested for dealing drugs, I can see where the cell phone, as a possible tool of the crime, could become suspect.

Possessing the means of our own undoing has been used "forever" against us. My ex-wife, a lawyer, concurred with your business partner, Fire, & called me stupid for admitting anything to the so-called authorities. The elaborated games we're playing will be our undoing, eventually.
I think transparency is our only possible defense. Use your phone knowing that you WILL BE overheard. The means exist to make us understand each other. I'm not advocating unwarranted intrusions, just saying if we want modern utilities we shouldn't shy away from their implications.

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.

They should definitely need a warrant for electronic devices that carry vast amounts of information. Just like the would a locked filling cabinet.

Is a locked briefcase searchable? I always understood that the locked briefcase in the trunk of a car would trigger the requirement for a search warrant.

Unless I'm mistaken, just 1 gb can contain as many as 10,000 to 20,000 smallish Word documents. That's hundreds of thousands of pages of data. Even at a modest 100,000 words, that's like carrying around 500 books' worth of data.

Just a little something to put this into perspective.

My ebook library is 7.6Gb and it is 5,462 books of various lengths. My cellphone has an 8Gb microSD card in it.

I'd even go so far as to say, start encrypting your stuff. I already do that to parts of my USB drive which is 4Gb.

Exactly, because of technology we have the ability to carry around a mobile strongbox or file cabinet. This information is virtual, and unless the sentence carried out is virtual too :) they need a search warrant.

Oh, it could be more than a "file cabinet." A fairly common full-sized bookshelf designed for the home can carry about 200 books fully packed. If we take Cyn's example of 7,000 books, that's 35 fully loaded bookshelves.

No, that's not a file cabinet; that, sir, is a library.

And let's not forget that 1 gb can easily store over 1,000 photos if not twice that amount.

how big are your bookshelves?

Just look at his avatar. :lol:

It was just an estimate. It also depends on how big the books are.

I'm talking about the bookshelves that are six feet high or so.

Would a warrant help anyone to search my mind? Fear of others knowing what you think isn't the same as protecting evidence of what you've done.

If I ever say 'we' again, fucking shoot me.

AFAIK, if there is probable cause to search a car, then a locked briefcase in the trunk is searchable without a warrant. California v. Acevedo. Some courts have limited the search only to the passenger compartment, whereas others permit a search, on probable cause, of everything within a vehicle.*


*I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. This is just the ramblings of a Straight F student.

I just thought of this, if my laptop or netbook is with me, do they have the right to search that as well?

A lot of that is state by state and situational. What are they investigating? Why? Why are they looking for info from you? In Oregon if I arrest you for DUII and want to look in your trunk I need a warrant. In fact if I wanted to look in your trunk I wouldn't even ask you for permission, I'd request a warrant. Some defense attorney would argue you were in no condition to give consent for a search. If I arrest you for murder because your wife is shot dead at your house, your kid is missing and there's a warm gun on the seat of your car... I can search your trunk. As for data and portable storage devices... before my time. no idea.

Send a text and/or e-mail to your lawyer and save it. Your phone or computer has just become an instrument of communication to your lawyer. This should make an interesting arguement in any court case.

I am no lawyer, but I have been on the other side of an arrest(charges were dropped). If I remember correctly your property is returned to you after you are released. And again, I do not presume to know the law here, but I do not believe the authorities have free rein over your possessions just because you have been placed under arrest. I would not want them chewing my gum or spending my cash, so why should they be able to play with my phone? Retreving data(in any form) from private property should ALWAYS require a warrant.

People are wrongfully arrested all of the time and it is not reasonable to think the authorities should be able to treat your personal possessions as a playground just because they placed you under arrest. I'd have to call violation of the 4th here.

Well sir if you don't have anything to hide you shouldn't mind the cops going thru your house. I have only two things to say to a cop, "I do not consent to a search. I do not answer questions without an attorney present."

This is why:
YouTube.com: search: Don't Talk to Cops (Can't post links yet.)
Watch part 1 by Mr. James Duane

I don't doubt you have the right of that, Steve1776. I was referring by arrest to being picked up elsewhere than at home.