California Supreme Court Rules Cell Phone Searches Are Legal | Techland

GETTY

The police in California can now search your cell phone or handheld device without a warrant for evidence for a case, according to a ruling issued today by the state’s Supreme Court. The judges determined that police have the right to examine items they seize, which can range from text messages to app history to websites that you browsed. An appeal on the ruling could be sent up to the US Supreme Court according to California Deputy Attorney General Victoria Wilson, who The Daily Mail reported was the prosecutor on the case.

The 2007 California Case that lead to the ruling involved a suspected drug dealer who confessed to selling Ecstacy after a police officer discovered a text message that read “6 4 80,” meaning six pills for $80, who later appealed on the grounds that the evidence was found without a warrant. CNN said that while police can search any device, if the item is locked you are not obligated to give them your PIN or password. ”The police can ask you to unlock the phone – which many people will do – but they almost certainly cannot compel you to unlock your phone without the involvement of a judge,” American Civil Liberties Union member Catherine Crump said to CNN. Similar cases have come up before both in Ohio in 2009 and in the US District court system in 2007, and both of their rulings stated that it was illegal to look for information on a cell phones without a warrant.

To me it searching a cell phone without a warrant seems similar to searching a car for evidence without going through the proper procedures, and search and seizure without a warrant is illegal. However, it is true that valuable evidence can be erased without a trace an electronic device with more ease than, let’s say, getting rid of physical evidence. Do you agree with the California judges in this matter? If it the case makes it to the US Supreme Court, do you think it will be overturned?

More on TIME.com:

Twitter Trash Talk Takes Courtney Love To Court

Twitter Does Not Mean Copyright Free, Court Rules

Did Skype Talk Itself Into A Lawsuit By Explaining Last Week’s Outage?

ecvoice

Let’s not forget Probable Cause here.

If there’s a “reasonable” belief that evidence of a crime would be found in an officer’s search of an alleged criminal’s cell phone, then it’s free game.

Texts via cell phones are probably the de facto manner of engaging in illicit behavior as it is, so it’s no surprise that they’d be available to a “reasonable” search.

So, I’m sure limitations still exist with regard to how much of a search officers can perform. As to how those can be monitored while you’re in custody or being patted down, well, that’s another matter.

I think the nature of the alleged offense really needs to come into play here, as well. If it’s a small-time drug deal, it’d not high on a list of priorities against, say, confiscating the cell phone of an assassin, terrorist, murderer, kidnapper and/or accomplice to any of the above.
Kelley K.

This is tricky.. A warrant must be issued to sieze and search computers, so… I think I will side with the Constitution on this one. If all you’ve got for evidence on a drug distribution charge is “6 4 80″ then you’re probably not a great detective anyway.

If you get pulled over drunk, who cares what’s in your phone.

If you’re a cop busting a drug dealer, get a warrant before hand so you don’t have to worry about it… or, go undahcuvvah and have the drug dealer text YOU. No cell phone search needed my friends. Glad I could help.
pks29733steel

Home phones require a search warrant to ‘tap’ or ‘bug’ the phone line. House and computers also require a search warrant to search. Why not a hand held computer? Per our ‘Constitution’ aren’t we protected from UNREASONABLE seaches and seizures? If we allow cell-phones to be searched without a warrant how soon will they be tapping your home phone lines and searching your home and home computer without a warrant!!
http://stockycat1.wordpress.com stockycat1

Most federal courts to review this matter have also permitted the police to search the contents of a cell phone. However, the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Smith departed from this view. The court reasoned that a cell phone is different from a traditional container because the technological sophistication and nature of modern cell phones has created a heightened expectation of privacy.

I have posted a more detailed analysis, and links to upcoming law review articles on the subject, at: stockycat.blogspot.com