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.'"

Comments

Occupy Movement.

[unity100]

Every other day we are seeing another example of how the ones who were supposed to exercise power on behalf of the people have become enemies of the people.

Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.

can you say with a rational mind that, things like occupy movement are unnecessary in such a world ?

Terrible reason for veto; Let courts do their job

[Scott Swezey]

Wow. It was my impression that the supreme court judged cases based on existing law, and the legislature wrote new law. Perhaps the legislature wrote this law because it disagreed with the recent court decision. Part of why the legislature exists is to create and/or update laws in response to changing times and public opinion.

To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.

(For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election)

Override?

[Mr. Shotgun]

According to TFA, the bill was approved with 70-0 in the assembly and 32-4 in the state senate. Can't they just override this asshat?

Re:Override?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you only have open carry activists to blame for the ban on carrying unloaded handguns.

So you're saying, we can have all the liberty we want, so long as we don't use it? Blame the victim much?

They are clearly outside of the mainstream, but they went out of their way to force themselves on the mainstream.

Oh, they "forced themselves on the mainstream" -- so did they strap a piece on you and make you walk around with it? Or do you mean a minority made themselves highly visible to promote awareness?

I have an idea, why don't we just ban being gay, and blame it on those Gay Pride Parade people -- they're clearly outside the mainstream (what, something like 10%?), they went out of their way to "force themselves on" (i.e. "make themselves visible to", not "forcibly rape" -- isn't it confusing when we redefine phrases?) the mainstream, and if they'd stayed in the damn closet where they belong, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Seems like you'd agree?

Is the ban a good thing? I'm not sure, but I know that I will feel safer if the guy next to me doesn't have a handgun on his hip.

Maybe he will feel safer if he does have one -- that's no more a justification for permitting it (if it would otherwise be banned) than your feeling is to forbid it (if it would otherwise be permitted). Kudos for at least realizing that doesn't constitute a reason to declare tha ban a good thing, but in that case I'm not sure why you mention it...

Re:Vote 'em out

[ohnocitizen]

Its becoming a race to the bottom, with all three branches of government at both the federal and state level pushing each other to invade privacy and erode rights further and further. Putting either a Democrat or Republican in office doesn't seem to be doing anything at all. What exactly does that leave? Who do we replace them with (when voting them out is even an option). Several members of the Supreme Court have indicated they sit on the bench to further corporate interests at the expense of individual rights. What recourse do we have?

Re:Vote 'em out

[Jeremi]

If they want to be this way, vote 'em out. Bastards.

All well and good in theory, but in practice it only helps if the alternative isn't even worse. And in the contemporary US, the alternative to a lousy Democrat is usually a much lousier Republican.

(Yes, I know about third party candidates. Unfortunately, our elections are set up in such a way that the only real effect third party candidates can have is to siphon support away from the mainstream candidate they most resemble... which means that voting third party makes it less likely that the third party's policy goals will be realized. Sad, but true.)

Deliberately ignoring the Bill of Rights

[sjames]

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.

Re:How many Californians

[larry bagina]

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.

Re:Vote 'em out

[Jane Q. Public]

"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?

Re:Where have ye gone, Jerry Brown?

[anagama]

Don't confuse Democrats with Liberals or Republicans with Conservatives. Neither are either.

Re:How many Californians

[PCM2]

See, the thing is, California in its present state is more or less ungovernable. I and others who voted for Jerry Brown did so, at least to some extent, because as a former governor he was uniquely situated to be honest about this, and was prepared to work within the limitations of his office. Becoming governor was hardly going to be a feather in his cap when he'd already served two terms. He's also campaigned both for the Senate and the Presidency in the past; both campaigns failed. His last executive position was as Mayor of Oakland, where opinion about him was pretty mixed. So in a way, he has more to prove than any other candidate if he still harbors further political ambitions. People know him too well. I believe he's content to be what he is: a career California politician who just wants to make a difference. I, for one, certainly don't envy him the position of governor.

Would I vote for him again? That depends on many things. Remember, last time he ran against Meg Whitman.

Re:You could just get a dumbphone

[SilentStaid]

Best yet: How about we as a people take a stand against unreasonable search and seizure like our founding fathers intended with that little thing called the fourth amendment?

Am I the only one who is indignant that we're already trying to come up with ways to circumvent this rather than to fix it properly? Let's stop trying to use band-aids to patch up these "little inconveniences" to the Bill of Rights.

Damn, call me an idealist but I'm getting sick of this. And not that I'm a gun nut - but isn't Gov. Brown the same guy who just said that it's illegal to publicly display a firearm in his state? Who the hell does this guy think he is? Why are you standing for this, Cali? /rant

Re:You could just get a dumbphone

[AngryDeuce]

Hey, I'm all for taking a stand, but at the end of the day, I'm gonna cover my ass by making sure the phone they search is useless anyway. Being legally in the right doesn't much matter when they can make your life miserable regardless.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It's the people that assume their "rights" will protect them that end up losing every damn time. Better to assume they won't and leave them with nothing either way.

Re:You could just get a dumbphone

[m50d]

Do you really need your whole life on your phone? Isn't a contact list and a calendar/alarm (as well as the ability to talk/text) more than enough?

No, I don't need to. But I want to, and it's supposed to be a free country.