California a-okays warrantless cell phone searches

[Asher]

It's obvious to any thinking person that cops can pretty much only do two things: harass criminals and harass innocents, and any time they aren't doing the former they're pretty much guaranteed to be doing the latter.

I hope you do not get paid for your insight.

[Hauldren Collider]

I hope you do not get paid for your insight.

While I am in general agreement with Kuciwalker here, I have to agree that this was a pretty dumb thing. Isn't that sort of process of elimination?

(Of course that's not what he meant, but it still reads funny )

[Kuciwalker]

I hope you do not get paid for your insight.

That should be readily inferred from "it's obvious to any thinking person"...

[Darius871]

What a ridiculous article title. The cell phone was searched AFTER the guy was arrested. It wasn't as if they tapped into his cell phone before an arrest was done.

^this. The thread title just about gave me a heartattack for no good reason.

[Asher]

The title is fine. It's just what it says.

Tapping is not a search. Searching a cell phone without a warrant, however, constitutes a warrant-less cell phone search

[Darius871]

Has Asher noticed that this is just California, which everyone already knows is a festering rat hole?

Meaningless. The existing federal precedent for search "incident to arrest" would easily extend to cell phones in any state that addresses the issue. If 1) it's on your person 2) while you're being arrested and 3) the arrest itself is valid, the cops can do whatever they damned well please with it. A diligent defense lawyer might argue that the doctrine's dual purposes of protecting officers' safety and preventing dissipation of evidence don't apply, but the doctrine has already become so loosed from its original moorings that some wild hypotheticals about phone-knives or drug dealers quickly grabbing at their phones to hit a shortcut key to a delete-and-overwrite app would be more than enough for any appellate court to comfortably find for the state. Frankly this decision is so utterly unsurprising that I'm about to doze off here.

[Darius871]

They need a court warrant to arrest and perform a search for the other crime, which requires valid evidence.

after people are arrested (WHICH REQUIRES A WARRANT)

OK please stop talking. There are only about a gaziznillion ways to arrest someone without a "warrant," just as there are a gaziznillion ways to search something without a "warrant." The relevant question is whether the initial arrest was valid.

[Berzerker]

I agree, the title made it sound like a general approval for warrantless tapping of cell phones. Which would be genuinely outrageous.

welcome to the Patriot Act

or some "executive order" most of us never heard about

[MikeH]

Why doesn't Asher ever complain about public surveillance in London?

He does/has, frequently, and quite rightly.

This is new.

[MikeH]

Asher FTW on this one.

HC's got his head in the sand if he thinks cops won't use this as a tool with a meaningless arrest for almost nothing just to gather intelligence from cell phones. Presumably you could choose to arrest people for traffic violations which would normally just get a ticket in order to see their phone info.

[Asher]

In Arizona, can't you even arrest someone for looking hispanic?

[Asher]

Asher FTW on this one.

HC's got his head in the sand if he thinks cops won't use this as a tool with a meaningless arrest for almost nothing just to gather intelligence from cell phones. Presumably you could choose to arrest people for traffic violations which would normally just get a ticket in order to see their phone info.

And before HC thinks this is ridiculous, I'll say something similar already happened to me -- cops were looking for ANY excuse (and they settled on implied blackmail) to search my car when I was pulled over in butt**** Ontario with a car full of my **** (as I was moving). When they find something suspicious, stuff like this just gives them ammunition to pull you over and violate your rights.

[Hauldren Collider]

OK please stop talking. There are only about a gaziznillion ways to arrest someone without a "warrant," just as there are a gaziznillion ways to search something without a "warrant." The relevant question is whether the initial arrest was valid.

I defer to your lawyer wisdom.

[Hauldren Collider]

In Arizona, can't you even arrest someone for looking hispanic?

Are you another person who hasn't even read the law, like Eric Holder?

[Asher]

Why would I read the laws for backwards states or third world nations?

Why don't you summarize the law if you are (apparently) defending it.