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.)

23 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Easy Fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just stop committing all those crimes, you wicked cellphone wielding people!

    1. Re:Easy Fix. by Mitsoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read the briefing...

      They already had him on doing a drug sale, and the cell phone was searched after he was read his rights and his items were confiscated for booking.

      It is kinda a grey area, but I'm happy this case is not about searching someone BEFORE any crime was committed & booked... rather, it was after he was arrested. There was also no password/encryption in use.

      This does bring up a mixed feeling.... But i think the judge made the right call -- There was no immediate danger, or issue, that could justify bypassing the individuals rights. He was already in custody and being charged for a crime... His phone was safely in police custody and being processed to store. A judge should have reviewed the information and issued a warrant to search the phone.

      If the crime was kidnapping, and the phone might have information on where to go to save someone's life.. I'd agree in a heartbeat that his phone should be searched immediately.. But this guy was being processed to go behind bars and nothing in the phone could have reasonably been useful to solve any immediate crises.

    2. Re:Easy Fix. by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you are fine with the police violating the rights of its citizens in arbitrary situations.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Easy Fix. by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They already had him on doing a drug sale, and the cell phone was searched after he was read his rights and his items were confiscated for booking.

      But in most jurisdictions, if they had taken his car while making the arrest, they would have had to get a search warrant before they started digging around in the car.
      It seems only proper that they get a warrant for the phone. If it makes as much sense as you seem to imply, they would have no problem getting the warrant.

      Unless they suspect there evidence in the car, they don't automatically have a valid reason to search it. Even if they believe there may be a trunk full of drugs, most police agencies will get the warrant just to be sure it stands up in court, because "suspecting there is evidence" has been found to be just too big of a loop-hole and has been so often abused that it is routinely thrown out. In fact in some jurisdictions, if they seize the car/phone, all emergency situations cease at that point and there is no longer exigent circumstance to search for drugs. Bombs, maybe, but drugs or cell phone data, not so much.

      See: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

      As for "having him on Drug sales", I fail to see why that makes a difference. They already had is phone too. He wasn't going to be given a chance to wipe it.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Easy Fix. by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the former is a in clear violation of the US Constitution and open to even more abuse, where at the latter just costs extra.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Easy Fix. by fast+turtle · · Score: 2

      only thing is, it's a damn iPhone w/sealed battery. Can't be pulled. Many other smart phones going to the same setup. Non-replaceable batteries and can't even be opened so tell me how a Police Dept is going to do more then turn the damn thing off. Only to discover that a Pin/PW is needed to unlock the damn thing.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  2. It's just so sad that the practice by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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..."
    1. Re:It's just so sad that the practice by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.

      But if it happens, a lawyer can now point to this ruling, which states that searching the contents of a mobile phone without warrant during an arrest is almost always illegal, and that any evidence coming from the phone is inadmissable. Which means that evidence that the police _might_ have found in another way is now inadmissable.

    2. Re:It's just so sad that the practice by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Informative

      AIUI, cops tend to follow this type of ruling very, very carefully and do their best not to violate any new guidelines handed down. This isn't because they have such a great respect for the law (although many individual cops probably do) but because they don't want to have their evidence declared inadmissible, with the chance that the entire case might be thrown out. After all, they don't have to agree with the rules of evidence, they just have to make sure they follow them.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  3. Slowing the End Run around rights by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Common sense by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Common sense by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep well done America, you've partisaned the English back into power, whether republican or democrat.

    2. Re:Common sense by crovira · · Score: 2

      Does this work for the locks on my house? The dial on my safe?

      You're asking this of guys who'll kick down your door if you don't open it fast enough and run in with weapons blazing?

      Seriously?

      --
      MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    3. Re:Common sense by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Perhaps they are legally required to have a warrant, but there's no punishment to them if they just ignore that restriction. At least not locally. (OTOH, the local police have been awarded a federal oversight manager with power to fire the chief of police unless he cleans up the department, so perhaps that's not common.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Common sense by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      The officers were investigating a domestic disturbance, which qualifies as an exigent circumstance under California law..

      Had they merely walks out an met the officers on their porch nothing would have happened.

      Yet the prevented the officers from doing what the law required them to do.

      Don't like that law, then get the law changed, and watch more monsters beat their wives while forbidding the police to enter.

      The people you elected voted for that law, principally to protect women. If a vote were held today on that issue
      it would pass again, easily, because women voters outnumber men, and Ariel Castro has taught us all a lesson
      of what an unrestricted right to privacy in your home can bring.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  5. This is good by nebular · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. The real enemy is the war on drugs by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The real enemy is the war on drugs by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Were they? Or was the "War on Drugs" instituted (or at least leveraged) as an excuse to get the exceptions? As a rule I avoid wearing a tinfoil hat, but I've never heard any non-tinfoil explanations that make sense. Certainly there were a *lot* of competing interests that banded together to to demonize cannabis, and after that... A few of the extremely addictive or damaging substances perhaps you could make a case for on public heath or national security grounds - China for example has a history of using foreign opium addiction for political leverage, but the rest?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:The real enemy is the war on drugs by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2

      re: the war on child porn : have you noticed how lately a lot of the child pornography arrests state that the DHS was involved in the arrest? What is the Department of Homeland Security doing involved in child pornography cases? Is that a weird extension of their range of authority, or was that always part of their function?

      re: the war on drugs : have you noticed all of the weird highways stops, oh 50 to 100 miles inland away from the actual border, manned by the border patrol? There's one near the San Onofre plant north of San Diego at about the level of Camp Pendleton on your drive up from San Diego to Los Angeles on the 5.

      re: the war on sex crimes: there've been cases in san diego of teenagers being charged with sex crimes and child pornography for "sexting" or taking nude pictures of themselves on their cell phones. Current idiots actually believe that "snapchat" is ephemeral and that the pictures disappear! Such silliness.

      Anyway, all of these wars just seem like convenient excuses for power grabs by the authorities. Like notice how policemen can run around in masks thesedays for warrant busts, and that undercover police hide their facial features in court cases so that they don't get identified. Somehow, even though the excuse of "but their identification would ruin their further use/utility in the police department" almost seems sensible, it sure seems wrong to not be able to have your accusers openly testify in open court...

      Abuse of power? And people put up with it, sadly.

  7. Re:It makes Sense by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That might be the most worrying thing, it actually makes sense! Sure to be overturned on appeal!

    Have a look who made that ruling. Then come back and tell us who would overturn this.

  8. Re:Doesn't matter anyway by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Records are one thing, (and the Justice Department had a warrant), but your secret stuff in your phone is quite another.
    You expect your phone records to be less protected, because you entrust them to a phone company.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  9. Re: It makes Sense by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because that is the trend. Courts are fighting back against creeping totalitarianism.

    And obtaining a warrant is not that big of a deal.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  10. Re:It makes Sense by cavreader · · Score: 2

    Gestapo? You can bitch all you want but at least have the intelligence to realize comparisons of this type undermine the true horrors and injustices perpetrated by the Gestapo. If you really think the US government is acting like the Gestapo then most people think life was really not all that bad in Germany during WW2. If Home Land Security or any other law enforcement agencies acted like the Gestapo you would most likely be dead or in prison for publishing your opinion on the matter. Totalitarian systems have a way of silencing all criticism of the government without the need for a justice or court system at all. If a state keeps killing their citizens out of hand sooner or later the citizenry will stop complaining about their government becuase of fear. Look to N. Korea as a fine example. Problems in the US government are on the front page of every news outlet in the US and the world for all to see. Even all the hyperventilating over the Patriot act is idiotic since no US citizen has been convicted of violating any of the Patriot Act dictates. Courts routinely dismiss charges against people due to violations of there civil rights. Every time the government has arrested someone for Patriot Act violations the court has ruled against the Patriot Act and dismissed all charges. Look it up. Not a single item in the Bill of Rights has been taking away from anyone. Anyone charged with a crime gets the chance to argue civil rights abuse during their arrest. The executive and legislative branches of government can propose and create laws but the judicial branch has the power to judge whether or not the law infringes on someones rights.