Slashdot Mirror
Florida Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Search Cell Phones
An anonymous reader writes "In a case stemming from a Jacksonville burglary, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Thursday that police must get a search warrant before searching someone's cell phone. 'At this time, we cannot ignore that a significant portion of our population relies upon cell phones for email communications, text message information, scheduling, and banking,' read the majority opinion (PDF), authored by Justice Fred Lewis. 'The position of the dissent, which would permit the search here even though no issue existed with regard to officer safety or evidence preservation, is both contrary to, and the antithesis of, the fundamental protections against government intrusion guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.'"
The Ontario court of Appeal in a case called Fearon recently decided that if the phone is not password protected it is fair game for the police to go through it without a warrant.
Well, pretty good quality of life(lots of sunshine, some good schools, tons of fun stuff to do), no state taxes.... its not all that bad at all.
For the same reason you can patent ancient chestnuts by suffixing the claims with "...in a mobile device." All bets are off and no claim is too outrageous.
The powers assume you don't have civil rights until some court says you do. Even the words on a 200-year-old scrap of parchment are re-parsed with each new technological advance (printing press, telegraphy, telephones, etc.) because there are people in power for whom your clearly stated rights are an obstacle to their goals... so your rights are not applicable in this particular case until someone slaps them on the wrist and tells them that the right does, in fact, still apply.
This is the ugly truth behind the often-quoted maxim "the law doesn't keep up with technology." The people behind the law have a vested interest in making sure the established protections of the rule of law can't be applied in as many circumstances as possible, and work hard to redefine each new technological plateau as a new frontier of surveillance, seizure, and self-incrimination.
The men behind the Bill of Rights understood this. This is why we even have a Bill of Rights: because the government needs a standing restraint order against stalking their citizens.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
First of all, marriage is NOT a right and never has been, even for heterosexuals. The individuals states have taken it upon themselves to allow, as a PRIVILEDGE, heterosexuals to marry legally within that state(by way of marriage certificates) and offers certain benefits within that marriage unit. The states long ago, realized that encouraging marriages between two people would be beneficial for the state because as nature would have it, a heterosexual union was the best chance for a stable environment to reproduce and raise up children who would yield future positive contributions to that state (get good jobs, pay state taxes, buy goods, etc) and then themselves get married and the cycle continues. So yes, it is a state issue, not a federal one.
DOMA was put into place as a way to keep states from recognizing any other states law regarding gay marriage. So Florida wouldnt be forced to recognize a couples gay marriage certificate from California. It doesnt stop California from deciding whether or not it wants gay marriage. I'm not sure why this even came into question. Of course California can define marriage differently. I dont think DOMA ever had in its language to prohibit individual states from defining marriage how they see fit.
The only part I didnt like about that whole California case was that the California Supreme court allowed by ruling to let the people vote on it, as long as they got enough signatures on the ballot, which they did. Then when voting time came, the majority ruled to have no gay marriage, which afterwards the same California supreme court said it was unconstitutional. Thats just odd but then again it is California.
Just FYI everyone, the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Florida state constitution, and it's well-settled precedent that state constitutions can provide greater protection than the Federal constitution. The only way this case could have legitimately gotten to the U.S. Supreme Court is if the Florida Supreme Court found that a warrant WASN'T necessary. The defendant then could have asked the USCT to find that under the 4th and 14th amendment one was required.
So before the United States came into being there weren't any marriages!!! Hooray for the USA! ("Helping people 'hook-up' for over 200 years!!!)
... Or you are just plain wrong.
Here is a very important detail that just doesn't get noticed:
The US Constitution and Bill Of Rights DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS to the people. The people already had those rights. Those documents recognize those rights and protect those rights from intrusion by the government.
You might remember another document that said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. "
Yup, it is "self-evident" that these rights do not come from any gooberment proclamation. That fact that people seem to think that the government has rights over PEOPLE is one of the major problems that we have nowadays.