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.'"

4 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Terrible reason for veto; Let courts do their job by Scott+Swezey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

    --
    Scott Swezey
  2. Override? by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
  3. Re:Vote 'em out by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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?

  4. Re:You could just get a dumbphone by SilentStaid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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