Slashdot Mirror
Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone
An anonymous reader writes "In a decision that's almost certainly going to result in this issue heading up to the Supreme Court, the Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [Friday] ruled that police can't search your phone when they arrest you without a warrant. That's contrary to most courts' previous findings in these kinds of cases where judges have allowed warrantless searches through cell phones." (But in line with the recently mentioned decision in Florida, and seemingly with common sense.)
Just stop committing all those crimes, you wicked cellphone wielding people!
Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.
Those cool, adventurous science-fiction dystopias in Bladerunner and the like. Well, they aren't so cool for most people to live in. They certainly aren't cool for the people who witness the transitions - from the 70s to post 2001...
It's a long way from the top, now. And we didn't tie a rope to climbe back.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Really, for once the court seems to have a backbone. (Only once?)
It of course makes no sense that you can have a pile of papers and "edible looking items" in your car, and those are protected, but then there's your phone over there in the corner, "yay, it's electronic so the consitution doesn't apply!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
From a casual reading (by a non-lawyer) of the constitution, this makes perfect sense.
This thing about "we can go through all your possessions if we somehow get our hands on it" is ludicrous, and the "if we can pick the lock or break it open we can rummage around inside" thing is stupider still. If I lock my data but the police manage to break the encryption method they can rummage around in the data? Does this work for the locks on my house? The dial on my safe?
The simple search looking for weapons thing "to protect the officer" was an exception, but they've taken it beyond extreme rights violations.
If you see someone committing a crime, arrest them. If you can't convict them without the data on their cell phone, you shouldn't have arrested them in the first place.
Oh, and if someone parrots "how can we do our jobs if we don't have the tools" nonsense, remind them that we're currently enjoying the lowest crime rate in several decades.
That might be the most worrying thing, it actually makes sense! Sure to be overturned on appeal! We are now living in The Age of Government Overreach and Security at any price! Nothing must limit the power of the Gesta---, (Cough Cough) Department of Homeland Security to do it job! Which they will define as they go along!
Courts are seeing that the cell phone contains far more private info than would normally be found in someones pockets. On the surface a cell phone would be open season without a pin code, but if you delve deeper it's more like you're carrying your filing cabinet with you at all times and should be treated as such.
They will keep your phone until they get their ribber stamp warrant. Make sure to have a backup.. I guess... And record all videos live to the internet
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The Justice Dept will take your phone records without your knowledge anyway. Just ask the Associated Press.
All these exemptions to the constitution were instituted as exceptions to aid the war on drugs. The real enemy is the war on drugs and prohibition 2.0 should be abolished.
Horray!
Are you arbitrarily stupid only when dealing with situations that actually mention imminent harm? Perhaps it is the mention of police that makes you arbitrarily stupid? Worst case is that stupid is is not your arbitrary state but is instead your default state.
Please read Mistoid's post carefully and tell everyone how you missed the obvious mention of imminent harm - you know the not so arbitrary situation where police don't have to have a warrant to conduct a search, but later have to justify their actions in front of a judge as specifically dealing with a situation that involved knowledge of or great concern of imminent harm. A simple "I thought someone was going to be harmed" is never good enough - you need specific reasons for a judge to rule a search under imminent harm to be legal, screw up the imminent harm explanation and the evidence collected is considered tainted and is thrown out.
If you notice ruling was from an event in 2007. This was probably one of the incidents that let to police departments having to get warrants for phones. While this is interesting because it shows that law enforcement can't do it without a warrant, I would be surprised if any of them did it anyways.
Our local police department hasn't been able to for at least 4 years, they aren't even supposed to open/look through your wallet.
a sudden outbreak of common sense.
There will soon be bipartisan proposals to counter it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There have been incidents here of NYCs finast shooting some poor schmucks who were guilty of just answering the front door "while being mexican or of driving a car "while being tipsy and black" and getting themselves shot dead.
"Quis custodiet ipso custodes" indeed.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
That's like giving the police rights to screw us in the asses. I don't trust the police and usually the police are crack pots.
Inventory searches are allowed for open areas and known spaces of storage for inventory purposes, they can't rip you car apart or examine it beyond simple visual checks for evidence of hidden storage compartments. So anything out in the open and compartments that are listed in the vehicle manual are acceptable locations for an inventory search, that means spare wheel storage, door pockets, trunks, etc are ok. A poorly designed hidden compartment is also considered acceptable if it is easily visually identifiable and unlocked or easy to unlock because they have the key in hand or an identifiable switch to unlock the hidden compartment.
A warrent is needed for searches beyod those locations. Inventory searches that go beyond that are overzealous and will likely result in inadmissable evidence .....unless there is a situation involving imminent harm.