Slashdot Mirror
California Governor Vetoes Ban On Warrantless Phone Searches
kodiaktau writes "In probably the most important decision Gov. Brown of California will make this year, he has vetoed the bill that would require officers to get a search warrant before searching cellular phones of arrested citizens. This further enables the police to carry out warrantless searches of private property extending into contacts, email, photos, banking activity, GPS, and other functions that are controlled by modern phones. 'He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message (PDF), he also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not. Instead, he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week.'"
According to the World English Dictionary:
1. Also called: personal effects personal property or belongings
According to the Bill of Rights:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What about that is so complicated that the courts and the governor can't understand it? A cellphone is an effect and the Bill of rights says you need a warrant to search those. It offers no exceptions.
There is a two-term limit but it only applies to terms served after November 6th, 1990. For term limit purposes, this is his first term.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
"And vote in who? That's the problem, there is no candidate or major party right now that could come close to winning a stamp of approval from folks who care about civil liberties."
Really? Are you going to be like most of the media outlets that have ignored Ron Paul?
In 30 years of politics, he has never broken a campaign promise; he has invariably voted exactly the way he said he would. He has consistently voted against unconstitutional laws, even when his stance was unpopular.
He predicted exactly the current economic situation well before it happened, when all the others were exclaiming about how well the economy was doing, right up to the crash in 2008. (Herman Cain, for example, is on video proclaiming the wonderful state of the economy, one week before the crash.)
The difference between Paul, and the other current candidates who have been saying things people have been wanting to hear, is that Paul has been consistently saying the same things for many years. The others are just saying them because they know that's what people want to hear.
And he has been consistently leading in the polls, and also making good campaign money. He received twice as much campaign money from enlisted military personnel than all the other GOP candidates combined, and more than Obama as well. That should tell you something.
He has also been leading the straw polls.
So, to summarize: he has proven himself to be honest, he has been dedicated to changing government in a good way, even when that view was unpopular, and he is popular. What more do you want?