California to allow warrant-less search of mobile phones

[DaemonSeid]

CNN) -- If you get arrested in California, better hope there are no incriminating texts or e-mails or sensitive data stored on your phone.

On Monday, a Superior Court in Ventura County, California, ruled that police in that state can search the contents of an arrested person's cell phone.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents, the ruling contends that "The loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include 'personal property ... immediately associated with the person of the arrestee' at the time of arrest."

Two justices (Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno) dissented from the majority opinion: "In light of the vast data storage capacity of smartphones and similar devices, the privacy interests that the federal Constitution's Fourth Amendment was intended to protect would be better served by a rule that did not allow 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."

In a blog post, Ohio attorney Patrick Murphy summarized the California case that led to this ruling:

In 2007 a Ventura County Deputy Sheriff witnessed a drug deal involving a car driven by Gregory Diaz. Diaz and his passenger were immediately arrested, and six Ecstasy pills were seized. At the police station, Diaz's phone was confiscated. Diaz denied knowledge of or involvement in the drug deal.

After Diaz was interviewed by police, Murphy writes, the deputy "looked at the cell phone's text message folder and discovered a message that said '6 4 80' -- which in the deputy's experience meant 'Six pills of Ecstasy for $80.' Minutes later [the deputy] confronted Diaz with the text message, at which time the suspect admitted to participating in the sale of Ecstasy."

But this ruling is not limited to text messages.

The ruling allows police in California to access any data stored on an arrestee's phone: photos, address book, Web browsing history, data stored in apps (including social media apps), voicemail messages, search history, chat logs, and more. Also, depending on the use of location-enabled services or apps that store data on the phone, the police might also be able to infer the arrestee's past whereabouts.

Link

Isn't a warrant still needed to check a land line? How is this any different besides that fact that your mobile phone is 'personal property'?

[ThetaPrincess24]

I say BOOOOOO on this ruling!

[Alumiyum]

Yeah if that guy were carrying a laptop when he was arrested they would need a warrant to search files, right? So how is the phone any different?

[PeppyGPhiB]

What really bugs me about this one is that they aren't just searching the data of the person arrested - if there are emails, for instance, between him/her and someone else, that third party's email is being invaded, too.

[ThetaDancer]

I agree with the point made by the justices who dissented. Phones contain so much information and allowing police to rifle through them doesn't seem in line with the 4th Amendment. I think this could take the idea of losing privacy upon arrest way too far.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by ThetaDancer

I agree with the point made by the justices who dissented. Phones contain so much information and allowing police to rifle through them doesn't seem in line with the 4th Amendment. I think this could take the idea of losing privacy upon arrest way too far.

Exactly. Not to mention that though I'm sure 99% of cops out there are good at their job and wouldn't do harm to a citizen in their custody, I still don't trust a stranger to go through my personal information which can include passwords to accounts, credit card numbers, etc. as well as personal messages between myself and others (and as just pointed out...that means that person's privacy is being invaded as well). I don't understand why a cell phone should be the exception to the rule.

[Drolefille]

The parole agents check a parolee's phone if they have him cuffed. But as they have the right to search the parolee and his house/car for no reason in particular I don't think that this has been an issue to them.

/cool story bro.

[AOII Angel]

Put a password on your phone. Problem solved.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Put a password on your phone. Problem solved.

I was going to say that, but I wasn't sure if the police have the ability to search your phone as they're arresting you or if they can still do a search while you in a holding cell (for example).

I've seen enough police shows to know that a BlackBerry password won't stop the techs downtown lol

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

After Diaz was interviewed by police, Murphy writes, the deputy "looked at the cell phone's text message folder and discovered a message that said '6 4 80' -- which in the deputy's experience meant 'Six pills of Ecstasy for $80.' Minutes later [the deputy] confronted Diaz with the text message, at which time the suspect admitted to participating in the sale of Ecstasy."

Um, dumbass alert. He should have said it was his cousin's birthday or something (since that actually is feasible as a date). Slow thinking criminals are the worst.

[Drolefille]

^^^ There's a correlation between the slow thinking and the criminal part.

[excelblue]

No, that guy should have refused to interview the police. "6 4 80" could be anything -- it could just as easily been a password, keycode, or birthday as previously mentioned.

The reason why police interviewed him is because the text message itself wasn't evidence of anything. However, the minute that guy spoke up and admitted to it, that's a verbal confession -- solid evidence. Whether or no the text message was obtained legally, that guy's headed to jail. He just waived his 5th in the worst way possible.

In any case, this ruling still bothers me a lot. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court. Until then, I guess it's time for me to lock my phone.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by excelblue

No, that guy should have refused to interview the police. "6 4 80" could be anything -- it could just as easily been a password, keycode, or birthday as previously mentioned.

The reason why police interviewed him is because the text message itself wasn't evidence of anything. However, the minute that guy spoke up and admitted to it, that's a verbal confession -- solid evidence. Whether or no the text message was obtained legally, that guy's headed to jail. He just waived his 5th in the worst way possible.

In any case, this ruling still bothers me a lot. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court. Until then, I guess it's time for me to lock my phone.

I'm completely Law and Ordering this because the only law I've "studied" is business law, but couldn't his lawyer argue that the illegal search of his phone led to the confession, so it should be thrown out since he would not have incriminated himself otherwise?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Um, dumbass alert. He should have said it was his cousin's birthday or something (since that actually is feasible as a date). Slow thinking criminals are the worst.

This would probably be worse - he'd have to produce a cousin with that birthdate at trial (since the text alone was enough to charge in addition to his proximity, most likely), and since it was in a police interview, he's essentially impeached himself already.

Once he knows he's being charged (which the text essentially does), it may be to his benefit to cooperate and try for a reduced sentence - obviously that totally depends on his past record, the DA, etc.

In general it's better to just not talk at all than to lie to the cops.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I was going to say that, but I wasn't sure if the police have the ability to search your phone as they're arresting you or if they can still do a search while you in a holding cell (for example).

I've seen enough police shows to know that a BlackBerry password won't stop the techs downtown lol

Ha...I bet they could break you iPhone code pretty quickly if they really wanted to. Though, I think it locks if you do it wrong to many times. I should probably check on that since I use the password and should know how many times I can screw it up!