SCOTUS To Weigh Smartphone Searches By Police

schwit1 writes "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances. Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones."

Comments

Can we hope

[colinrichardday]

Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?

Re:Can we hope

[silas_moeckel]

We can hope for a proper decision of you can crack the encryption if you can after getting a warrant and the owner has no burden to help you nor can refusal be held against them.

Re:Can we hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?

We can hope, but considering some of the decisions coming out of SCOTUS recently I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:Can we hope

[TheRealMindChild]

Just like most cops, they will just tell you "Give me your phone" and start looking through it. Since you didn't say "no", it is considered consent. I wish I was making this crap up

Re:Can we hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as long as the NSA is permitted to collect every communication ever made from your phone, under a flimsy secret justification from a secret parallel judiciary without any constitutional basis for existing. Warrants cease to exist when you permit the US government to turn its surveillance apparatus on its own people.

Police want to harass you? Forget taking your phone, legally or otherwise. That's so 1998. Stamp "National Security" on it, and they can mine through years of your assumed private communications, find some incriminating bit, and use it to destroy your life in a secret trial.

Re:Can we hope

[nurb432]

You can hope for unicorns too, but it wont happen.

We will lose yet another piece of our rights here. And it will spawn even more encryption techniques..

Re:Can we hope

[Anonymous Coward]

If the phone, laptop, desktop, etc is locked and otherwise secured, it's like the lock on the trunk of your car. They need a warrant. Plain and simple. They can't compel you to hand over the key or pop the trunk..

If, however, your phone either has no security, or has poor security, or was found open unlocked, you're bitched.

That's how it should be.

Re:Can we hope

[demonlapin]

That's why you have to be specific. "I do not consent to any search. Am I free to leave?"

Re:Can we hope

[kelemvor4]

That's why you have to be specific. "I do not consent to any search. Am I free to leave?"

Good luck with asserting your rights to police officers in the US. Here's an example. All they need is probable cause> which they can create. Of course that's if you're not part of the 66% of Americans living in the constitution free zone. If you're part of the 66%, then police don't even need probable cause as you aren't being protected by the fourth amendment.

I'd love to hear the SCOTUS side with the people on this, but I fear it would only be symbolic.

Re:Can we hope

[dryeo]

In Canada the the threshold is whether the phone is locked. Unlocked they can look, just like they can look in your wallet. Any kind of lock they require a warrant. Not too bad of a compromise.
Unluckily our government is trying it's hardest to change the Supreme Court into a partisan court like the States with latest appointee having only one qualification, seems he was the only judge in Canada who thought that a Canadian citizen locked up at Guatonomo Bay (sp?) didn't have any rights. This guy doesn't even meet the Constitutional requirements to sit on the Supreme Court yet the government appointed him. To give him credit, he has recused himself from all cases until the Constitutional part is ruled on by the court.

Re:Can we hope

[davester666]

No. And stop resisting arrest immediately.

Scalia says the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mention phones, so there is no right to them.

In fact, he's pretty sure they're witchcraft.

Little will change

[Anonymous Coward]

After this passes officers will just have to upload a pic of weed to my phone before they can bust me.

They should allow it

[TrollstonButterbeans]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.

This is how crime is done these days.

Probably an unpopular opinion to some, but this is how drug deals, flash mobs, knockout games and preplanned crimes are done.

No judge cares about your grocery list or calls to grandma.

They do care if your phone has a map to victim's house in the recent history.

Re:They should allow it

[Scutter]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, maybe if someone died and there is a reasonable suspicion

what if I failed to come to complete stop at a sign?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.

If there is so much 'evidence' as you say, it seems obtaining a warrant would be trivial.

They do care if your phone has a map to victim's house in the recent history.

Right...seems like that would be good 'evidence' to get a warrant to other locations such as the suspects house, car, business...etc.

That would certainly make police work a lot easier.[/sarcasm]

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying there's enough evidence to get a warrant. This is no different than reading someone's mail in their house. Pen traps? Got it. Just like reading an envelope, and you *tell* the phone company where to send it. However, this is blatantly in the "Secure in their papers" part of the constitution. Get a warrant.

Re:They should allow it

[EdIII]

Seriously? How on earth does anything you just said magically erase the US Constitution?

That smartphone represents, just as you said, access to huge amounts of information about the suspect. As well as information about innocent third parties that quite possibly had nothing to do with the crime.

You're supporting the idea of fishing expeditions into a person's digital space.

Arrest does not imply guilt. A member of the Judiciary should always be consulted regarding, and allowed to limit, the scope of any search of a person's effects and papers.

So, NO. There is not always enough evidence to justify the full and complete invasion of privacy of a citizen that is innocent until being proved guilty. If there really is a justifiable reason to invade that privacy than the police can convince a judge to do it.

Don't be a douchenozzle that enables their asshattery please.

There is never an acceptable reason to violate due process and PERFORM ANY ACTION WITHOUT A WARRANT .

Warrant, warrant, warrant, W A R R A N T!

It's a well conceived check and balance against tyranny ever present in a law enforcement organization. Don't give up something so valuable to the citizens over such stupid reasons.

Re:They should allow it

[EdIII]

I think it largely has to do with ignorance.

The poster holds a rather unsophisticated view that allows them to see the police's reasonable and justified need for access to that information as something correct and desirable.

The 4th doesn't mean anything to the poster since they don't understand the basics taught to people in Civic's class. That being, the ostensibly simple concept of having a member of the Judiciary act as a check and balance against the needs of the Executive.

Nobody is saying that the police should not have access to that data. They absolutely should and I can totally understand that it would be very useful to solving crimes. What the proponents completely miss is the understanding of what a warrant is .

That's the real problem. How many people understand what the heck a warrant even is anymore?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.
 

People are routinely arrested when they have committed no crimes.

The mere fact that someone has been arrested doesn't in ANY way justify
a warrantless search of their phone.

You are either a cop or an idiot. Of course you could be both, that is a common
occurrence.

Re:They should allow it

[TrollstonButterbeans]

That is a lot of bold print. But in 2013, a suspect is going to be carrying a note saying "Drop off the drugs to Tim at 555 N. Street" it is going to be a text message on a cell phone.

The cell phone is the new notepad or scrap of paper that the criminal is carrying.

Re:They should allow it

[Scutter]

Ah, decided to go with "douchenozzle" anyway, I see.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people understand what the heck a warrant even is anymore?

Only like the greatest hairband EVAR!

....oh.....I may have made your case for you.....

Re:They should allow it

[mysidia]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, there is enough evidence to see what recent contact information, phone calls and text messages are on a cell phone.

No...... because no evidence is required to arrest or detain someone, only suspicion of "substantial chance" or "fair probability" that there might be a specific criminal activity, the person is involved with. The phone might contain personal information, or information that could be incriminating in a manner unrelated to the basis for searching it: Illegal fishing expedition.

Since there was no warrant documenting the police officer's hunch, or reason for the search or suspected criminal activity, the suspicion can be modified, to whatever the phone suggests!

A search requires obtaining a warrant which shall not issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation describing the particular thing to be searched for.

A warrant is the proper standard, for breaking an encryption lock box and rummaging around in someone else's effects, without their cooperation.

Even a warrant should be insufficient to compel the suspect to disclose passwords or decryption keys, or penalize the suspect for refusing, however.

Re: They should allow it

[VTBlue]

Agreed if the police want phone history just get a warrant for records from the cellular service provider, Skype, viber whoever.

The modern day smartphone should be treated like a safe, which requires a warrant to open. I believe the standard is that if there is a general expectation if privacy then you need a warrant. What is the difference between searching a smartphone or vehicle? Legally I see no difference.

Re:They should allow it

[Opportunist]

If you have cause to arrest me, it should be fairly trivial to get a warrant to search my phone, shouldn't it? Or are we learning from the Stalinist times of "arrest him, then keep poking through his private life 'til we find a reason for it"?

Re:They should allow it

[Opportunist]

Again, if there is reason to believe someone is a drug courier (because, say, you find drugs on him) it should be fairly trivial to get a warrant for the phone. What's the problem with that?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

No judge cares about your grocery list or calls to grandma.

I'm almost convinced that you are correct, and that such information is so unimportant that its unsanctioned disclosure to third parties does no harm.

To prove your point, please reply to this message with all your email messages and text messages to/from your grandmother(s) for the past year. Also post your grocery lists for the past year.

Re:They should allow it

[Sarten-X]

Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.

Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.

It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.

Re:They should allow it

[mrchaotica]

You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one.

The key word there is "nearly." We have a name for the exceptions: they're called "civil rights violations!"

Re:They should allow it

[joe_frisch]

Your phone may include passwords to online or home storage that contains evidence of crimes unrelated to the one for which you were stopped. It may also contain information on activity that is legal but highly embarrassing. The police do sometimes release personal information to the press on people who have not been convicted of a crime.

The phone may also contain information on legal political or religious beliefs that would be prejudicial to someones trial.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't know how the warrant system works. Nowadays, they CAN perform search and seizure when time is of an essence BUT they must get a warrant afterwords within a time-frame (I think 72 hours). Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches. By having to get a warrant even after the fact, a police officer must first give a reason that is considered reasonable to perform a search. You seriously don't think all cops will be reasonable with their actions do you?

Most warrant are approved without any hassle but there are a very small percentage that are denied because they are unreasonable. Saying you want to bypass the warrant system is like saying you are ok with a cop searching your house because you was in the "wrong" part of town or because you are black or some other stupid reason that does crop up in real life because people's judgement are clouded by their own views.

Re:They should allow it

[TWX]

what if I failed to come to complete stop at a sign?

That would be a civil traffic offense, not even a petty criminal offense. Granted, you're still subject to the same conditions as any other Terry Stop...

Re:They should allow it

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/3769823/in-miami-gardens-store-video-catches.html

An arrest is supposed to mean an officer had probable cause. In practice it means nothing whatever.

Requiring judicial review preserves a little privacy for victims of DWB and harassment arrests.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? How on earth does anything you just said magically erase the US Constitution?

The founding father could never have conceived of smartphones. That's why the fourth amendment specifies that it only applies to things that existed in the 18th century like houses and wagons.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one.

Every law on the books, every rule of evidence followed by the courts, and every amendment in the Bill of Rights, is there because something went wrong 0.01% of the time.

Re:They should allow it

[TWX]

If there is so much 'evidence' as you say, it seems obtaining a warrant would be trivial.

Unfortunately you are incorrect.

Several neighbors had their houses burglarized. One neighbor found their TV for sale on Craigslist. They called the police in the city that the burglary took place in, that city PD had him contact the seller, that was a mile and a half over just into an adjacent city, so it was set up with that adjacent city's PD to meet the seller. Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.

I do not think that this was right, but it does demonstrate that it is not always possible to get a warrant even when the circumstances should be blindingly obvious.

I think that a warrant should be necessary to search someone's cellphone at any time, not just at arrest. Traffic stops, border entry, "immigration checkpoints", any reason. Mind you, if someone has been arrested and the investigation and charges against them indicate either conspiracy (like the fence for the stolen TV) or multiple perpetrators then it probably should be shall-issue for warrants for communications devices, but if a crime doesn't meet that standard then it should be much harder to get a warrant.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.

Because "all the bullcrud" is there to help keep the cops from abusing their power! By getting a warrant, they are (at least in theory) affirming that they have probable cause to conduct a search. If we were to let your "common sense" take over, then the cops could search people for whatever reason they felt like, probable cause be damned. Now, the vast majority of them may in fact be sane, rational, and fair with when they conduct searches without a warrant. However, there are plenty of crooked cops who will use it as an excuse to harass people. THIS is why we have the requirement for a warrant. Read the goddamn Bill of Rights sometimes. Half of the stuff in there should be common sense, but it's there because power can and WILL be abused without some safeguard!

Re:They should allow it

[EdIII]

So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.

That "bullcrud" is called Due Process and the Constitution of the United States of America.

"Nearly 100%" doesn't cut it. You're being a douchenozzle right now.

If it was your freedom at risk, why would you elect to remove the Judiciary oversight from your interaction with law enforcement?

Another question:

You may feel that way, but why would you deny me my Constitutional right to privacy in my effects and papers?

The position you hold is not reasonable, or rational, and basically amounts to "due process and oversight is so hard. I have to like convince a judge that my logic is correct".

In other words, you strongly disagree with the idea of peer review.

Those checks and balances were created by the founding fathers for a reason. Not just to fuck with law enforcement and make their lives harder.

Re:They should allow it

[EdIII]

Judges can be woken up, and if we have so much crime that we need to start hiring and paying judges to work grave yard shifts we have much bigger problems.

At that point let's just put society to rest and create Judge Dredd.

All of your examples pale in comparison to the protections afforded by judicial oversight. It's my RIGHT to have that judge woken up and asked if the logic and reasoning behind the violation of my privacy is warranted.

Interesting how that word is used. An action can be "warranted". That's what a warrant means. Somebody designated by the citizens and trained to be impartial evaluated the situation and said the invasion of my privacy was warranted and in the best interests of society.

With respect, I FUCKING WANT THAT.

Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights, haul my ass off to jail for forced enemas, colonoscopies, beatings, jail rapes, etc.

Let's keep due process dude. It's a really good idea.

Re:They should allow it

[EdIII]

The cell phone is the new notepad or scrap of paper that the criminal is carrying.

Maybe so. However, it also represents scraps of paper that are held in numerous other locations, and information that has nothing to do with the crime at hand.

Nothing you said even for a microsecond excuses your desire to eliminate due process. Remember, I'm not arguing that you can't get it. Only that I want a judge to say that the getting of my data is warranted.

You have the same back asswards logic that the NSA uses to justify mass surveillance. We *could* be ohh that much safer if we just got rid of due process and violated everyone's privacy in real time forever. All of the criminal text messages would be seen instantly!! We could even create a "precog" division for rapid response and be at the drug drop *before* the criminals get there.

No dude. The risks and dangers to our society from such invasions of privacy are so much more dangerous than whatever security you think you gained with it.

Once again, for the 2nd time in this post, if you really think you need it, just ask for a WARRANT.

A WARRANT allows you get that information you want because the logic and reasoning you have for getting it is determined to be WARRANTED.

You have not presented any logical reason whatsoever for getting rid of my due process rights.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one.

...

An arrest means enough evidence to be strongly considered to being charged with a crime, not just casually annoying some guy who a cop wrote a parking ticket.

Because cops are never mistaken, of course, right?

Man who gave homeless man 75 cents gets pulled over by police

Of course he made the mistake of agreeing to them searching his car, but I can understand why, he probably thought they were "likely to do more than just cuff/detain him" if he refused. And obviously because they saw him give 'something' (75-cents) to a homeless guy, he "obviously" was a drug dealer - because nobody gives spare change to the homeless anymore, right?

So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.

See, that's funny... because, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the cops job was to follow and enforce the laws of the land, of which, unless I am mistaken, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the law of the land? Therefore, according to the 4th Amendment, which is the law, their job is to get a warrant in order to search my effects, papers, etc. I'm not sure why expecting them to follow the law they purport to uphold is "bullcrud", seems like common sense to me that they should be following the Amendments set down in law to regulate what they can and cannot do. Seems to me to be greatly lacking in common sense to allow them to violate the 4th Amendment, whether it be 100% certain, "nearly" so (whatever that is, is 90% "nearly"? 80%? 50%? Who decides what "nearly" is?), or whatever - that is a Judges job to decide whether the evidence they have is certain/sufficient enough to give them a warrant to search, not the police's.

Unless you want to make all the police into Judges, and maybe we can find some guy named "Dredd" to be the best of them? Is that really the picture of society you want in our country?

Re:They should allow it

[Libertarian001]

Yes, let's let the cops do their job. That includes GETTING A GOD-DAMNED WARRANT.

The rest of your commentary is so laughably idiotic that I hope no one wastes any time responding to it.

Re:They should allow it

[Sarten-X]

Try again.

Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".

Re:They should allow it

[Sarten-X]

Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights

That's why there's arrest warrants. The judge is involved beforehand.

Of course, you can be detained or arrested without a warrant, if the police officer has probable cause to believe you committed a crime. In that case, you can challenge the arrest right off the bat. Then a judge is involved, and if the judge disagrees with the police, everything they have is excluded and the police department is ripe for a wrongful arrest lawsuit. that's real due process. You get a chance to defend yourself against accusations. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You do not get absolute freedom until judgement.

It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy? If the on-call judge is busy with another call, then what? Does a burglar caught red-handed get to run away because the police have no warrant to arrest him?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.

Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.

It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.

Seems to me like you're just trying to get around human fallibility and normal limitations that have been around as long as crime has.
The fact that criminals have the upper hand most of the time by breaking social convention... does not mean you must break the law to catch up to them. Because then, by opening the door for warrantless searching, some the NSA sociopaths grinning widely. They're going to be pointing to your cause as an excuse for your wholesale warrantless surveillance, of something more than just those fast-acting thieves.

Problem is, you never hear "this thief brought to you by ... NSA surveilance!" They don't worry about local crime and small fries. And your third point opens the door for parallel construction: debate in court whatever story we can make up for that future date, because right now we reeeaaaally wanna catch you for this other secret reason that is unacceptable for the court to know about. If there's 1 criminal per 100 people, malfeasance and other problems normally limited to that one thief via due process now potentially target all 100. See wholesale surveillance, and the principle I keep hearing here that "everyone breaks many laws every day, so you better hope not to caught a cop's bad side TODAY!"

Re:They should allow it

[jamstar7]

You seem to agree with everything I said but want the hassle of the warrant in situations that you agree are nearly 100% likely to get one. So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.

It's called 'Due Process' and is the only thing keeping you from arbitralily being swept up and jailed when they 'round up the usual suspects'.

Sure traffic cops and beat cops catch a lot of flak, but no cop is looking to search your cellphone for speeding or littering. So I have to be a little curious to know what oddball corner case that you have in mind that would involve an arrest, but wouldn't be a serious crime and wouldn't be a situation where the police were likely to get a warrant --- and whatever creative corner-case you have in mind can't be more than a few percent of those types of arrests. An arrest means enough evidence to be strongly considered to being charged with a crime, not just casually annoying some guy who a cop wrote a parking ticket.

You're assuming every cop is a Boy Scout and wouldn't think of tainting evidence. May I remind you of the most famous instance regarding manufactured/manipulated evidence, a double homicide in Brentwood? The jury was convinced that he did it, but since evidence was tainted to the point where they couldn't even prove what day it was, the jury was forced to aquit based on the remaining untainted inconclusive evidence, and since double jeopardy prohibited a retrail and there was insufficient untainted evidence to support a guilty verdict or present at a retrial if the trial was ruled a mistrial, it had to go to jury where they aquitted him. Did he do it or not? I have no clue, and now, neither will anybody else other than the suspect and the victims, and the victims ain't talking.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges can be woken up, and if we have so much crime that we need to start hiring and paying judges to work grave yard shifts we have much bigger problems.

At that point let's just put society to rest and create Judge Dredd.

All of your examples pale in comparison to the protections afforded by judicial oversight. It's my RIGHT to have that judge woken up and asked if the logic and reasoning behind the violation of my privacy is warranted.

Interesting how that word is used. An action can be "warranted". That's what a warrant means. Somebody designated by the citizens and trained to be impartial evaluated the situation and said the invasion of my privacy was warranted and in the best interests of society.

With respect, I FUCKING WANT THAT.

Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights, haul my ass off to jail for forced enemas, colonoscopies, beatings, jail rapes, etc.

Let's keep due process dude. It's a really good idea.

Interesting you should mention some of that last part... a great example of why Judicial oversight is 'warranted' and a search warrant should be REQUIRED:

Woman sues over vaginal, anal exams in El Paso drug search

As her passport was swiped, a CBP officer told her she was "randomly" picked for a secondary inspection, where Portillo and Herrera frisked her through her clothing.
"One of the agents ran her finger over Ms. Doe's genital area during the frisk," the lawsuit said.

Then the woman was told to squat as one of the officers "inserted her finger in the crevice of Ms. Doe's buttocks." The frisk did not show any evidence of contraband or drugs, the lawsuit said.

Then the woman was told to stand in a line with other people as a drug-sniffing dog walked by.

The officer with the dog "hit the ground by her feet, but did not hit the ground by any of the others in the line," the lawsuit said. "The dog responded by lunging onto Ms. Doe and landing its front paws on her torso."

Ives said she does not believe this was a proper signal to indicate a drugs were present, but officers used it to continue the search.

The woman was taken to another room and asked to take off her pants and crouch as her anus and vagina were examined with a flashlight, the lawsuit said.

The woman, now crying, was taken to University Medical Center after the strip search did not find anything.

"During the car ride to the Medical Center, Ms. Doe asked if the agents had a warrant," the lawsuit said. "One of them responded that they did not need a warrant."

While handcuffed to an examination table, the woman was searched again by both officers and Cabanillas and Parsa. She was given a laxative and had a bowel movement in a portable toilet in front of both officers, the lawsuit said.

Then the woman's abdomen was X-rayed, but there were no signs of drugs or any other contraband in the woman's body. A speculum was used to probe her vagina and Parsa's fingers were used to inspect both her vagina and rectum while the door to the examining room was left open, the lawsuit said.

At this point the lawsuit claims, "Ms. Doe felt that she was being treated less than human, like an animal."
The last test was a CT scan of the woman's abdomen and pelvis, which resulted in no evidence of illegal activity being found.

The lawsuit said after the CT scan one of the officers told the woman she could sign the medical consent form and CBP would pay for the exams, but if she did not sign, she would be charged. The woman refused to sign and eventually she was charged more than $5,000 for the examinations.

According to the lawsuit, she repeatedly refused to consent to any of the searches./p>

University Medical Center's search of patients policy states, "Associates, members of Medical

Re:They should allow it

[jamstar7]

Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.

Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.

It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.

No. No. NO. An arrest after a search without a warrant can be overturned by any defense attorney worth their salt. If following due process inconveniences the cops and the legal establishment TOO FUCKING BAD, it's not there for them, it's there for the common citizen.

Re:They should allow it

[jamstar7]

Try again.

Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.

A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".

A 'fishing expedition' and search prior to an arrest, without warrant, IS unreasonable.

Re:They should allow it

[fyngyrz]

The police can detain you if they believe they have enough evidence to do so. However, the 4th requires that to search you, or seize your property, they need a warrant. So, if required, you, and they, should wait for one while they supply said evidence to the judge.

Yes, I know they just do whatever the fuck they want, but they are wrong, and the 4th spells out exactly how they are wrong.

Until or unless the 4th is amended, we're talking about government out of control.

Re:They should allow it

[jamstar7]

Your phone may include passwords to online or home storage that contains evidence of crimes unrelated to the one for which you were stopped. It may also contain information on activity that is legal but highly embarrassing. The police do sometimes release personal information to the press on people who have not been convicted of a crime.

The phone may also contain information on legal political or religious beliefs that would be prejudicial to someones trial.

So what? GET A WARRANT. Following chains of 'evidence' obtained without said warrant can take you anywhere. A buddy of mine was interrogated by the FBI because, once upon a time, he was Timothy McVie's landlord, years before McVie moved out and blew up the Federal Building. Haddn't seen him in years since he moved out of town, before that, saw him once a month on Rent Day to get the check, and the rest of the time, didn't let his name cross his mind.

Re:They should allow it

[AK Marc]

How are the police supposed to know that a crime was committed if they don't search every bedroom and tap every phone?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

Seems not. Oh and the redcoats from the American Revolution called, they want their oppression back. It seems they hold a patent on it or something.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

At that point let's just put society to rest and create Judge Dredd.

From the confused US reception of the Stallone movie of that name there seemed to be a lot of people that thought the 2000AD Fascist society that Dredd was a part of was a good thing :(
There's a very strong swing towards authoritarianism lately from people that seem to see the US Constitution as just a piece of paper. If it gets in the way of those they think should be King they ignore it (eg. the response to Snowden showed many think their "lords and masters" are more important than the violations of the constitution on show).

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Whitesnake.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it largely has to do with ignorance.

The poster holds a rather unsophisticated view that allows them to see the police's reasonable and justified need for access to that information as something correct and desirable.

The 4th doesn't mean anything to the poster since they don't understand the basics taught to people in Civic's class. That being, the ostensibly simple concept of having a member of the Judiciary act as a check and balance against the needs of the Executive.

Nobody is saying that the police should not have access to that data. They absolutely should and I can totally understand that it would be very useful to solving crimes. What the proponents completely miss is the understanding of what a warrant is .

That's the real problem. How many people understand what the heck a warrant even is anymore?

Are you a rat or pig? [snitch or cop] First off there is no reason for them to search your phone! There is no reason for them to ask your name, or search you for ID.
If your caught on a phone while driving it becomes the coppers job to prove without any doubt you were on the phone, or whatever bullshit they create to search your phone. That comes down to the judge ordering the defendant to hand over the phone or ordering the pigs to do there jobs and search for evidence that the phone was being used for that purpose only, anything they find "suspect" outside of that can be used to nail you for something else later on, and that is the whole point of the 4th..

So in another words, lets say the coppers can just enter your home without a warrant, claiming "safety" reasons, and find anything they consider "suspect", you would be completely okay with that?, doing whatever they want, when they want to? Lets say that tobacco pipe sitting on your table, the cops believe is enough for a warrant to search your house for drugs.

A tobacco pipe, not a marijuana pipe. This is getting dangerously close to being beyond a communist country anymore. It always was communist with the continuing attempts at censorship the press/media peddling government propaganda, without finding reporting any truth. The fact monopolizing companies and industry pretty much run the damn country, and get away with whatever they want. Evading taxes, taking reckless chances on peoples lives, ect.. Shit you or I would be arrested for and sentenced for, or as the US calls them in other countries "dictators".

Not yelling at you, you cannot just act like your Mr.Innocent until something happens to you, and then cry and moan about your rights because you did nothing to stop it now!!

Re:They should allow it

[Richard_at_work]

Honest question - do they need a warrant to open your wallet and look inside it if you had it on you at time of arrest?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy? If the on-call judge is busy with another call, then what? Does a burglar caught red-handed get to run away because the police have no warrant to arrest him?

Nobody is asking for 24-hour immediate action before *every* police action - and if you want a pony you can go buy one. A judge is not needed to arrest a burglar "caught red-handed", if the police catch him in the action of burglarizing someone, they catch him climbing out of the window of someone's house with the proverbial bag of silverware, they have no need of a judge to arrest him.

They *do* need to get a judge's signed warrant afterwards if they choose to break the door of his house in and search his house for other stolen goods - and what would the "urgency" be for doing that, that they would need to do it right then and there (say he's "caught red-handed" at 2am and arrested)? They can hold him in a jail cell for the night, get a warrant from a judge in the morning, and search his home (presuming the judge agrees with their request). They have no need/reason to search his cell phone unless, for some reason, they think/feel that whatever is on that cell phone is going to lead to something more urgent (imminent destruction of evidence, murder, kidnapping, etc), in which case they can wake a judge up - if it's not urgent then there is no reason to wake a judge up vs. just waiting a few hours until a judge is available. It puts the burden of *proving* that they have a reason to search for evidence on the police, which is where the burden is supposed to be.

To do otherwise says that the police can just go to the local "bad neighborhood", walk door-to-door and knock on the door, when someone answers say "you are under arrest for drug dealing", slap the cuffs on them, and then "oh, now we have 'probable cause'" (when they had, and still have, no proof of any wrongdoing), walk into the house and start searching for something to 'make their case' against the person. The point of the warrant being, when it gets to court and the judge asks 'why did you suspect they were dealing drugs, did you observe people coming and going, did you receive a tip, did you send an undercover officer in who bought from them?' if the answer is "no, we just assumed that they lived in a bad neighborhood they must be doing something wrong", even if they found 20kg of cocaine in the house, it'll be thrown out of court - "poison fruit" because they had *no* reasonable suspicion of them doing anything criminal other than "where they lived".

In your example of the burglar, if they catch him 'red handed' there is no reason for a warrant to arrest him if he was caught in process of doing the crime. If, however, they merely suspect that he is the burglar, they have not 'caught him in the act', then they need to prove it to a judge and get a warrant to be able to search his home for stolen goods as proof. Or, they can do real police work, watch his home and tail him going out and burglarizing someone, and arrest him in the act, if they can't get enough 'proof' to satisfy a judge for a warrant.

Unless you believe that, despite being a decent law-abiding citizen yourself I'm sure, that the police should be able to corner you on the street for no reason, "arrest you" for any charge they feel like with no proof of anything, and then search your phone, car, home, shoot your dog in the process perhaps, maybe find that $1000 you have stashed for an emergency and 'confiscate' it, and then just say "oh well, we made a mistake" without ever having *any* reason to ever suspect you of any wrongdoing in the first place?

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th doesn't mean anything to the poster since they don't understand the basics taught to people in Civic's class.

Maybe the poster understands what is taught in civics classes, but does not agree with it. I know it's considered unamerican to think for yourself but still... it can happen.

If you have an argument to make then make it, pointing out that something is told to children does not make it true, or reasonable or justified.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason for getting warrants even if they are trivial is that they leave a non-deniable paper trail. It is harder to change the past when it is submitted and in writing.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

Woah... how does this drivel get +5 insightful? You do realize this is why the supreme court is hearing this case, right?

Re:They should allow it

[nurb432]

Um, this is what warrants are for you moron. And why they are so important.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.

Why the hell should the lone fact of arresting a person with one (or even multiple) item of stolen merchandise be reasonable cause to search that person's home?

That's the same kind of logic that leads to civil asset forfeiture laws: you've been arrested on suspicion of breaking one law so we can assume you've probably violated a bunch of others until you prove to us that you didn't. Without sworn statements from anyone else claiming that the other advertised items were stolen, there was insufficient reason to violate the sanctity of the seller's home with a search.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you justified that comment getting +5, Insightful.

What the hell man, we have to drag the SCOTUS into this to fix it? Shit's broken.

^ The proper attitude.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is funny, because a Terry Stop is a search for weapons...

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

My kingdom for mod points. More of the GP's thinking and we'll live in a nanny sta....oh. right. Papers please!

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

We already gave it to them by not putting more teeth in the penalty for violating it.

Re:They should allow it

[Type44Q]

Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

I believe it means "annoying obstacle" in Fascist.

Re: They should allow it

[mikael]

You forget that mobile gaming allows chat modes. You don't even need to send a SMS message or a phone call. So service provider logs, or even port sessions log won't help. You'd have to get cooperation from the application vendor assuming they actually maintained logs.

Re:They should allow it

[Opportunist]

Sadly, an arrest is not an objective process. It only means that a cop thought it would be a good idea to arrest someone, that's basically all it means. Now, of course in most cases, I'd hope, it means that the cop has some very good reason to believe the person he arrested broke a law.

But what keeps a crooked cop from arresting someone he thought has slept with his wife to get a hold of that person's cellphone to see whether he can find some pictures that prove it?

Re:They should allow it

[oobayly]

It's not unreasonable at all - the guy was arrested for selling stolen goods on Craig's list, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the other items he has advertised have been stolen.

It's not like he was arrested for breaking a red light and wanting to search his house - that is not acceptable.

Re:They should allow it

[TWX]

Correct, the expectation was that he had more stolen merchandise in his apartment, and since images of the items for sale on Craigslist lacked visible serial numbers it was not possible to compare them.

Also more importantly, the burglaries in the neighborhood stopped cold after his arrest, which provides more credence that he was more involved than having unknowingly bought stolen goods to resell.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

If one was arrest for, as you say, breaking a red light then it's not unreasonable to assume he broke all of them.

Re:They should allow it

[RalphSlate]

Can the police search unopened mail that you may be carrying? That would seem similar, the phone is like a sealed digital package.

Re:They should allow it

[AK Marc]

It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy?

There's no demand for immediate, other than from the cops. There's no reason the cops, with PC, can't arrest you, seizing all your items for storage purposes only. Then, once they've seen a judge, they can gain access to your possessions for investigative purposes.

It's the cops that are breaking the speediness for immediate, not the GP. His argument just seemed to be that if you want immediate, then you need to make the judges immediate, not skip that step.

Re:They should allow it

[Bob9113]

Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.

I do not think that this was right,

I think it is possible, given the description, for that to be the right decision. You don't mention whether the authorities had any evidence that he had a history of negligently receiving stolen goods before, or that any of the other Craig's List listings were stolen. It is possible to conceive an innocent story that matches those events.

I have purchased several tired, used guitars recently from Craig's List. I have fixed them up and will now sell some of them. If it turns out that one of them is stolen, I would argue that does not amount to probable cause that I am warehousing stolen merchandise. Assuming I have a credible explanation for having one stolen guitar, it seems like it is substantially more likely that I am an innocent collateral actor and a warrant is not justified. Or, slightly differently; I would fight the warrant(*) and I think I would win.

I don't know the specifics of the story you are recounting, so your perception may be well founded. Based on the brief synopsis you present, however, it is possible to construct a backstory that would not support a warrant to my mind. I think that is one of the challenges that often eludes us in analysis of suspicious behavior; to consider how likely it is for an innocent person to have stumbled under the inspector's glass.

* if, for example, they found something else illegal, like a refrigerator full of murdered mimes, and attempted to convict based on plain view doctrine

Re:They should allow it

[anagama]

You got a citation?

I used this search:
craigslist tv warrant stolen goods

I found this story, police got warrant:
http://www.krem.com/news/regional/spokane-county/Local-man-tracks-down-stolen-goods-using-Craigslist--228170651.html

warrant issued: http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/Plover-Man-Accuse-of-Selling-Stolen-Property-on-Craigslist-234155941.html

warrant issued: http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Guns-and-robbery-kits-Craigslist-stolen-items-bust-192359201.html

warrant issued: http://www.abcnews4.com/story/22806385/craigslist-posting-leads-to-recovery-of-stolen-property

warrant issued:
http://www.ksat.com/news/craigslist-post-leads-to-thousands-of-dollars-of-stolen-property/-/478452/20969968/-/8tktj8z/-/index.html

There are tons of instances where people selling stolen goods have been the subject of search warrants. It would be interesting to see what specific set of details made your anecdote unique enough to avoid a warrant -- but I can't find it.

Re:They should allow it

[kelemvor4]

If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

Unfortunately it no longer applies to the majority of Americans.

Re:They should allow it

[spire3661]

TO be fair, a verdict either way brings us no closer to the actual Truth.

Re:They should allow it

[spire3661]

Dredd is a great mix of authority and street justice, thats why people find it appealing. No one REALLY wants a Dredd or even Robocop (as programmed by OCP).

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the need to get a warrant was indeed to make the job of a law enforcement agent, hard. considering the tyranny of law in the UK at the time, the founding fathers' intentions certainly were to hinder the abilities of such agencies as they knew that over time, such agencies would seek to gain abusive powers.
such as many three letter agencies seek to do today.......

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

Yes, but a few fan reviews I read just didn't get the joke and seemed to think it was all about advocating such a society, and they were cheering it on. I think some people REALLY want it :(

Re:They should allow it

[sumdumass]

eg. the response to Snowden showed many think their "lords and masters" are more important than the violations of the constitution on show

I don't think it is that way at all. Some just don't like spies that work against the US. Sure Snowden exposed what the government was doing against it's own people (and many already thought it was happening but relegated to conspiracy nutters) but he also exposed activities completely outside of anything constitutionally protected like not only that we have spied on other countries but how we did it too. If he limited his actions to only those that are unconstitutional and happening by the government, then I would hail him as a whistle blower, but he exposed a lot more then that and he did so to at least 3 different foreign countries, two of which can be considered a potential enemy.

So I have no special admiration of our "lords and masters", but I still dislike Snowden and what he did. I think he is a traitor who needs to suffer a traitor's end. It isn't a if A then B. It can be an "I hate A and B" which is what I think most of those dissing Snowden show.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

From some of your earlier posts the "he's defying the divine right of Kings" approach is exactly what I expected from you.
Try looking into why George Washington revolted to get why I think your view is very misguided. Look into King John as well while you are at it.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

I think he is a traitor who needs to suffer a traitor's end.

I'm curious. What's your view on the just punishment for North and Poindexter then?


I'm pretty sure I know the answer and I'm pretty sure it can be rephrased as "anything can be done in the name of the King".
I despise such medieval shit which is why I keep on pointing it out.

Re:They should allow it

[sumdumass]

North and Poindexter didn't give away state secretes to foreign nations. They had their day(s) in court and that's the end of it.

Now if only Snowden would have his day in court.

Re:They should allow it

[sumdumass]

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I have never taken the divine right of kings stand on anything. I do actually think these things through and apply logic and ration to them so you might find me not jumping onto the bandwagon a lot. The devil is in the details and in Snowden's case, he gave away information that went far beyond whistle blowing and actually aided foreign nations by not only disclosing intel we had on them, but the means and methods used to collect it. Anything positive he might have done was completely and irrefutably undone at that point.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

They sold weapons containing such secrets instead. I'll bet some of those rockets ended up hitting targets in Israel.
Also they didn't have their day in court - a Presidential pardon, effectively the Kings grace instead of an act of a Republic, spared them from that.

It's amusing that you think that selling weapons to a group that had killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before is overshadowed by Snowden informing the people of excesses or rulers out of control instead of serving the country. It makes me think of you as a living joke licking spittle off your masters boots instead of any sort of real man. It makes it even funnier when I think back to your chestbeating rants and your insults where you question my own masculinity.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

I have never taken the divine right of kings stand on anything

You most certainly have - you are treating your rulers as Kings that must never be questioned instead of people that have their power granted by the citizens and defined by the constitution.
I thought you would have picked up enough general knowlege to get the reference and understand what I meant by it.

Wishing Snowden dead for revealing the rulers as fallible human beings is a very strong symptom of that, as is some of your other Royalist rants here in the past. A "strong" leader without any of that messy judicary or elected representative stuff - isn't that what you've been going on about here for years?

Re:They should allow it

[sumdumass]

They sold weapons containing such secrets instead. I'll bet some of those rockets ended up hitting targets in Israel.
Also they didn't have their day in court - a Presidential pardon, effectively the Kings grace instead of an act of a Republic, spared them from that.Stop making shit up. Poindextor and North never got a pardon, they had their convictions vacated on appeals. And they got the help of the ACLU in doing so. There were a few administration officials who were pardoned by Bush after they were being charged for petty crap and most of them had their cases dropped due to the lack of evidence against them.

It's amusing that you think that selling weapons to a group that had killed over a hundred US Marines less than a year before is overshadowed by Snowden informing the people of excesses or rulers out of control instead of serving the country. It makes me think of you as a living joke licking spittle off your masters boots instead of any sort of real man. It makes it even funnier when I think back to your chestbeating rants and your insults where you question my own masculinity.

Perhaps if you would get your facts straight and look in the mirror, you would find reality is biting you in the ass. So lets see, we sell weapons to a country that sponsored a terrorist group that bombed a marine base verses telling every single country not only what information we have collected about them but how we collected it and who we collected it on. I would say what Snowden did is pretty serious in comparison.

Re:They should allow it

[sumdumass]

You most certainly have - you are treating your rulers as Kings that must never be questioned instead of people that have their power granted by the citizens and defined by the constitution.
I thought you would have picked up enough general knowlege to get the reference and understand what I meant by it.

Sigh, you are full of it. I know exactly what the divine right of kings is and what you meant by it. It's like your other post where you pretend North and Poindexter ended up getting pardons when the ACLU actually helped overturn their convictions. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Wishing Snowden dead for revealing the rulers as fallible human beings is a very strong symptom of that, as is some of your other Royalist rants here in the past. A "strong" leader without any of that messy judicary or elected representative stuff - isn't that what you've been going on about here for years?

You really need to stop making crap up. I said traitor's end, not wishing him dead. For all I care, he can rot in a prison in isolation for the rest of his life. and you have no clue if you think I been going on about that crap. Wake up and stop spreading your delusions.

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

I said traitor's end, not wishing him dead

Aha! The "I'm not saying ... but" weasel way out. Cocaine ravaged ex-DJs can get away with that because they are paid to entertain. The rest of us have to stand by our words or be judged less than what a wan or woman should be.

I'm actually a bit ashamed at highlighting your childish bootlicking. You are such an easy target, but when you replied to my post above with your childish "so perish all enemies of the Empire" style bullshit I just could not resist.

Hopefully some day you will wake up and stop being a "useful idiot".

Re:They should allow it

[dbIII]

Weapons were sold to Hezbolla with Iran as a delivery point, and North was in direct contact with people from Hezbolla to set it up and knew exactly where the weapons were going (plus embezzlement on the side for a new car and airconditioner). A traitor twice over AND a thief. Throwing a spanner in the works with international relations with Israel, France and a few other countries that had their troops killed by Hezbolla as well. How in hell can you compare THAT with a whistleblower? You've got nothing but being told what to say by those whose boots you lick. Do you do it while muttering "All hail the King"?

Re:They should allow it

[Reziac]

What these people arguing for doing away with the checks and balances don't seem to remember:

Anything can be declared illegal, at any time; all it takes is a little Moral Panic judiciously aimed at legislators. YOUR presently-legal activity could be outlawed, and you too could become subject to random search and seizure. How do you feel about that warrant now, eh?

Don't think so? look at the history of marijuana, formerly a perfectly legal thing to grow and possess.

This applies equally to court decisions and preservation of rights:

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

And dude, to add the parent, It is who makes the decision. It's that before allowing someone to invade a person's inherent rights as a human being you have second person, not their buddy, not the guy ordering them to do it, someone separate and objective check that voiding of those rights should be allowed. It is the check that is suppose to stop a police state, monarchy, or dictatorship. You may be willing to trust every single guy wearing a badge, but that likely only indicates a poor understanding of both history and human nature.

Re:They should allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

"A suspect", "the criminal". I see you're fully up on the police line of reasoning.

Re:They should allow it

[jamstar7]

TO be fair, a verdict either way brings us no closer to the actual Truth.

That's the problem with tainted evidence. It obscures the truth.

Seems obvious...

[WillyWanker]

But with this bunch of idiots on SCOTUS you never know.

Police should be free to search the physical device, for example, remove the battery cover, take it out of the case, etc, but not able to search the data contained within the device or its memory cards without a warrant.

Re:Seems obvious...

[Immerman]

Actually even searching the physical device should require a warrant - beyond a "Terry Pat" that's (supposed to be) targeted *exclusively* at detecting weapons, US police are required to get a warrant or your permission before searching you or your home/car/etc, though of course a little intimidation and/or selective hearing can usually get them that permission pretty easily. Well, plus the fact that a while back the rules were changed such that *suspicion* of drug possession was almost as good as a warrant.

Re:Seems obvious...

[WillyWanker]

Well that's just it, they are already allowed to search you if they have the suspicion of finding drugs. The question then becomes, can they then turn on your phone and look thru the contact list or call logs? Search the physical phone, yes. Search the data on the phone, no. If they take possession of the phone (which they most likely will if they believe something of value is on it) it's not like the phone is going to self-destruct, so they can wait for warrant if their case is strong enough. And if their case isn't strong enough to get a warrant then they have no business browsing thru the personal data on your phone.

Re:Seems obvious...

[adolf]

Well that's just it, they are already allowed to search you if they have the suspicion of finding drugs.

Incorrect. They need probable cause, not mere suspicion.

If they take possession of the phone (which they most likely will if they believe something of value is on it) it's not like the phone is going to self-destruct, so they can wait for warrant if their case is strong enough.

Mine can self-destruct. (I haven't actually -installed- a dead man's switch on it, but it's pretty trivial to do, just as it is on any other general-purpose programmable computer.)

And if their case isn't strong enough to get a warrant then they have no business browsing thru the personal data on your phone.

"through."

Re:Seems obvious...

[whoever57]

Actually even searching the physical device should require a warrant - beyond a "Terry Pat" that's (supposed to be) targeted *exclusively* at detecting weapons,

The problem is that many judges don't seem to have a grasp of simple logic. In the situation you describe, some judges would think: "In order to search for weapons, cops can search closed containers. Because cops can search closed containers, they can search anything else that might be closed, like a cellphone". Of course, this type of thinking completely ignores the rationale for the search of closed containers and the fact that such rationale doesn't apply to cellphones (the data contained within could not contain a weapon). But that's judicial logic for you.

Re:Seems obvious...

[Immerman]

>Incorrect. They need probable cause, not mere suspicion.
Can you cite a source for that claim? Because I'm fairly certain I've heard "suspicion of possession" as the magic words from several sources. Probable cause is what you need for a warrant.

As for a kill switch, it doesn't do you much good if their first action was to clone the drive, which I've heard is the standard process for PCs at least for exactly that reason. If some other computer is analyzing the data it doesn't much matter what self-destruct software would have been running if they had bothered to turn on your computer. Though admittedly soldered-on flash is slightly more difficult to swap into another machine than a SATA or IDE drive.

Re:Seems obvious...

[Immerman]

Actually the rationale doesn't apply to closed containers either, or open ones for that matter, unless they happen to be on your person and capable of hiding a weapon - the Terry Pat is only to ensure you don't present an imminent threat to the officers during questioning, nothing else. If they even want you to empty your pockets they need either a warrant or your consent, or to actually arrest you, which changes the rules somewhat. Sadly they are unlikely to face any repercussions for ordering you to do things they are not actually authorized to require, and by complying with their orders the judge is likely to decide that you voluntarily consented. And of course unless you know the law well enough to be certain which orders you are required to comply with and which ones are "requests" you're likely to get yourself in trouble by refusing to obey.

Re:Seems obvious...

[WillyWanker]

Congratulations! You've won the Pedantic asshole of the Day award! Please call 1-800-EAT-SHIT and ask for someone who cares! Have your credit card ready!

Re:Seems obvious...

[reikae]

Sounds like a scam; why would one need a credit card to receive an award?

I bet

[db10]

the only thing they will "wrestle with" is reading the script

Lock code..

[Adult film producer]

If the phone is locked up with a PIN they can't force you to divulge that information without a warrant, correct? A pattern/gesture lock might be the wiser choice though.

Re:Lock code..

[crutchy]

If the phone is locked up with a PIN they can't force you to divulge that information without a warrant, correct?

the world has changed in the last 12 years that you've had your head buried in the sand... nowadays police don't need warrants for anything (at most they might follow up the paperwork later with back dated warrants etc).

possession is now 100% of the law, so if the police sieze your phone, they can do whatever they want with it and there is nothing you can do about that. if the phone is locked, they either get what they want directly from the carrier or they threaten you with the thought of enjoying cuban cuisine for the rest of your life.

Re:Lock code..

[shentino]

Again we have that lovely "you have no right to privacy for information information in possession of a third party", in this case the third party being your carrier.

Re:Lock code..

[dcollins117]

the world has changed in the last 12 years that you've had your head buried in the sand... nowadays police don't need warrants for anything

They do indeed still need a warrant. It's the law. If you keep everything encrypted you are protected from any law officer under the delusion that they don't need a warrant.

Let's face it, law officers aren't the brightest people. In fact you are automatically disqualified from being in law enforecement if your IQ is high enough.

tldr; use encryption, protect yourself from dumbfucks.

Re:Lock code..

[vlueboy]

the world has changed in the last 12 years that you've had your head buried in the sand... nowadays police don't need warrants for anything

I thought GP was going to cite what I was thinking about in that quote.

They do indeed still need a warrant. It's the law. If you keep everything encrypted you are protected from any law officer under the delusion that they don't need a warrant.

Let's face it, law officers aren't the brightest people. In fact you are automatically disqualified from being in law enforecement if your IQ is high enough.

tldr; use encryption, protect yourself from dumbfucks.

You didn't either. What I was looking for is what I've heard about forensic tools that are now available to any cop, if I recall correctly, where they just plug in your phone and sluuuuurp! Done!
So you don't even need to unlock it, regardless of whether it's iOS or Android based. Since the US government has agreements with all those companies and there are backdoors in everything, the war is lost if the device leaves your hands, being it the good guys, or the bad guys.

http://www.androidauthority.com/xry-software-crack-ios-android-70132/ (plus some irony in the comment section given those were made in pre-Snowden days of 2012)
http://www.hotforsecurity.com/blog/us-police-forensic-tools-can-collect-suspects-smartphone-data-without-warrant-aclu-says-5574.html

Because given misunderstandings, the only good guy when it comes to your personal data is your own self. Nothing will stop "parallel construction" from creating a probable cause to view your data in some new light.

Re:Lock code..

[dcollins117]

You didn't either. What I was looking for is what I've heard about forensic tools that are now available to any cop, if I recall correctly, where they just plug in your phone and sluuuuurp! Done!

What you heard is wrong. There is a reason Edward Snowden publicly disclosed his data cache encrypted with AES-256; the NSA can't touch it. You can "slurp" up as much encrypted data as you want but if it takes you until the heat death of the universe to decrypt it, it's not of much use.

Because given misunderstandings, the only good guy when it comes to your personal data is your own self.

Which is why you take the responsibility and encrypt it yourself.

Re:Lock code..

[crutchy]

If you keep everything encrypted you are protected from any law officer under the delusion that they don't need a warrant.

bahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

what a dumbass!

Re:Lock code..

[anagama]

Given that the phone is actually in the possession of the person who owns it, and the police have no way of knowing of what on that phone is held by a third party, nor are the requesting any information from those third parties, I have trouble seeing the third party doctrine as applying to the phone itself.

But then, I have trouble seeing how any of the recent masspionage is constitutional -- I get the strained and overreaching arguments rooted in massive over-application of Smith v. Maryland, I'm just amazed they aren't immediately recognized as strained and overreaching and laughed out of court. Soooo ... I'm not holding my breath here.

Re:Lock code..

[hankwang]

any cop, if I recall correctly, where they just plug in your phone and sluuuuurp! Done! ... US government has agreements with all those companies and there are backdoors in everything

I find it rather unbelievable that this is possible in general for any smartphone. Indeed, the site of your first link writes:

many Android Gingerbread, Honeycomb (and, of course, Ice Cream Sandwich) devices are on the long list of products unsupported by the software.

The extraction process would be similar to rooting an Android phone. Online, you'll find many rooting HOWTOs which may give a hint to how easy it would be. On some phones, you just have to place a zip file with the appropriate /system/xbin/su binary on the SD card, and boot the phone in recovery mode. (For sluuurping, one would of course put a system binary in the zip file that would dump the entire system onto the USB cable).

For otther phones rooting requires that USB debugging is enabled (not the case with most people) or that the bootloader is unlocked - which may result in a factory reset that wipes (or just deletes?) existing user data.

Re:Lock code..

[EmagGeek]

Depends on which Federal district you are in. In whatever district Colorado lives in, you must decrypt your phone/laptop and or open your safe at home during a search. If you refuse, you can be thrown in jail until you comply.

Need good aftermarket encryption

[johngaunt]

A pin or pattern / gesture lock is useless if the cops have the phone. They DO have tools to render such trivial things useless. They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone, and then the phone is unlocked, data dumped, and sorted through. Encryption, strong, non manufacturer based encryption, is the only thing close to safe.

Re:Need good aftermarket encryption

[Kjella]

A pin or pattern / gesture lock is useless if the cops have the phone. They DO have tools to render such trivial things useless. They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone, and then the phone is unlocked, data dumped, and sorted through. Encryption, strong, non manufacturer based encryption, is the only thing close to safe.

Without hardware support you're screwed anyway because absolutely nobody wants to input a 128+ bit passphrase on their cell phone, you need some kind of trusted, tamper proof chip that'll nuke the encryption key if you enter the wrong PIN more than say 4-10 times.

Re:Need good aftermarket encryption

[Zynder]

I'm actually in the process of learning how modern Android phones operate. Do you recall the names of any such software? It would be mighty helpful in fixing bricked phones I would think.

Re:Need good aftermarket encryption

[mysidia]

They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone

What do you think of a plug that fits into the lightning port, locks into place using a magnetic lock, and prevents any other cable from being inserted?

Attempt to force removal, should trigger release of corrosive materials sufficient to immediately destroy the connector, and possibly leak into the phone, and render the unit inoperable

Re:Need good aftermarket encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called iphone 5s, no?

Re: Need good aftermarket encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? If you are referring to the fingerprint reader, it has already been defeated. Your fingerprints can be lifted and copied.

Re:Need good aftermarket encryption

[dbIII]

dd

Re: Need good aftermarket encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

I made my androids lock screen password something near 30 characters. Then had the phone use that to encrypt the data. This password will now be needed to boot the device anytime I turn it off. Then I switched it back to an easy pin... Its quick and easy to turn it off, any doing so makes the device a inaccesseble .

Papers and EFFECTS

[FuzzNugget]

It's not that complicated, damn it.

Re:Papers and EFFECTS

[artor3]

Not to mention that any honest reading of the Constitution would acknowledge that the data on a smartphone (or other computer) is the modern equivalent of one's "papers".

Re:Papers and EFFECTS

[EmagGeek]

"unreasonable"

It's not that complicated. The whole question will revolve around whether it is reasonable to search a detainee's cell phone. The 5-4 decision with John Roberts writing for the majority will read something like "it is well within the limits of searches for officer safety to ensure there is not any communication emanating from the phone that may be used to summon help for the detainee from acquaintances, which would pose a clear and imminent threat to officer safety."

I know you don't want to bet against me...

The Law

[The Cat]

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.

-- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

re: The Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. Problem is, it's not honored anymore.

Re:The Law

[Anonymous Coward]

While I totally agree that this is a case where they definitely should be using a warrant, I have a quick question for those of you that might have studied law.

What, exactly, was intended by "effects" when the constitution was originally penned, and what does it (or should it) mean today? What is considered an effect and what is not? I ask because we all know how the government likes to weasel its way around definitions for things that should be simple... such as the word "search" in regard to the NSA.

Re:The Law

[Opportunist]

Oh if they only made those politicians swear that they have to uphold that piece of paper...

Re:The Law

[Sarten-X]

That's an excellent question. No matter what answer you get, it won't be right in everybody's eyes. It's controversial.

As I understand it from my studies, "effects" was intended originally to mean physical belongings. Considering that persons, houses, and papers were already covered specifically, "effects" was a sort of "everything else". One decent example I've been told was "everything you'd take with you moving to a new home". In the 18th century, there was no general expectation of day-to-day privacy. Walls weren't soundproof, gossip was the primary entertainment, and world news was remote and unimportant compared to the neighbors' sins.

It's important to understand that the real coverage for information was supposed to come from the protection of "papers". Finance records, communication, and bills of sale all relied on paper. It was so easy to steal someone's horse and flee to the next town that someone's papers were effectively a record of their entire life and wealth. If one's papers were to be taken for legal examination, their livelihood would be extremely vulnerable, even if the person weren't actually arrested.

Let's not forget that our founding fathers were really rebels turned paranoid by the oppression of life in a British colony.

The British would, under the guise of "searching", ransack the home or business of anyone who offended the local rulers (governors, commanders, and so forth). The physical belongings of the victim would be seized, and the all-important papers affirming ownership would be taken for examination. Consider a farmer losing his tools and livestock right before a planting... his family would be dead within the year. It's the perfect tool for an oppressive government agent, keeping up the appearances of serving society while really just eliminating political opponents.

Of course, as the US matured and our police didn't end up exterminating families on a whim (often), the extreme fear that inspired the Fourth Amendment has subsided. The original meaning of "effects" is really rather unrelated to modern life.

Instead, SCOTUS has examined what the modern equivalent would be. Today, our lives are based less around the physical goods we own, but more what information we know. "Effects" is now held to include current information, while "papers" is more applicable to permanent records. Just as one may have given away belongings in the 1700s, one can now give away information easily. On the other hand, if someone wants to keep belongings or information, it is reasonable that they must make a basic effort to protect them. Belongings shouldn't be left abandoned far from someone's own home, and private information shouldn't be revealed publicly to still be considered private.

This is where the NSA gets its wiggle-room from. The information they're gathering is spread through publicly-accessible networks, so it's public, so they're not doing any Fourth-Amendment-Applicable searching. Of course, this "public" information isn't really available en masse to anybody else, but since that's just a matter of price, it still counts as public, right? SCOTUS hasn't decided yet, so that question is still up in the air.

Re:The Law

[spire3661]

Since the 4th is a prohibition on action, shouldn't their gaze be constrained to relevant and actionable data? The train of thought that if a third party has it, the government can also see it seems a huge stretch to me. Shouldnt the government be prohibited from gazing at 3rd party's data without documented cause??

Arrested criminal suspects....

[hawkingradiation]

Here we go again....we have to protect ourselves from the "criminals" even before they are deemed so by a court of law. We have to "get the criminals", well in my country now, Canada, it is now criminal to rip a dvd to your computer without the content owners permission. And going off topic a bit, how long before almost everyone can be arrested for carrying on normal-day activities?

Re:Arrested criminal suspects....

[Reziac]

That horse is down the road and out of sight.

Continuing to refer to it as a phone is a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Unwarranted access to a phone doesn't sound like that big a deal.

The phone component has become a minor feature of today's Galaxy S5 or iPhone 5. The device is computer as powerful if not more than your desktop or laptop 10 years ago. More memory, faster processor, camera, video/audio recorder, movie and song player, ability to run applications, etc.

In 10 years who knows what they will be able to do and what more will be stored on them.

Secure in your papers.

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAH! A phone isn't a paper.

If you had paper, you would be protected, for we have rocks.

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait to see the 5-4 decision for this.

Lose all hope !

[Taco Cowboy]

Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?

The big brother can, ~ and has, ~ tapped into telephonic data without the need to take physical control of your phone.

Feds have been caught setting up fake cell towers to intercept wireless traffics.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/feds-fake-cell-phone-tower/

http://www.scmagazine.com/tower-dump-of-consumer-mobile-data-a-popular-police-snooping-tactic/article/324789/

Am I the only one...?

[cyn1c77]

Am I the only one who sees the word SCROTUM every time /. uses SCOTUS?

Re:Am I the only one...?

[TheloniousToady]

Yes. Have you been tea-bagging Scalia again?

(sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

Re:Am I the only one...?

[Opportunist]

Well, they are wedged between a dick and an asshole, but then again, I doubt they have balls.

Re:Am I the only one...?

[myowntrueself]

Am I the only one who sees the word SCROTUM every time /. uses SCOTUS?

The acronym should be based on:

SupremeCouRtOfTheUnitedstatesofaMerica.

Re:Am I the only one...?

[dbIII]

You too?
I'm not in the US so that's probably why.
It gets mixed up in my head with the TSA search procedures every time I think of the USA and why I'm not planning to go there for a bit.

Fourth Amendment ?

[Taco Cowboy]

Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?

Tell you a very sad truth ... if you ask 100 Americans about the "Bill of Rights" maybe 50 of them have heard about that.

But if you ask them to tell you how many amendments are inside the "Bill of Rights" and/or what they are ...
 
... not more than 10 of the 50 can successfully recite all the amendments.

And to answer user EDIII

I think it largely has to do with ignorance.

It's not only about ignorance but sheer apathy.

They (especially the younger generations) just do seems to not care anymore !

Re:Fourth Amendment ?

[AK Marc]

I wouldn't think 10 in 100 would be able to name the amendments. I don't think anyone in Congress has heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments. And nearly everyone I talked to about Amendments gets pretty fuzzy after the second, especially the 3rd is so irrelevant.

I'd say more like 1 in 100 would be able to name the first 10 amendments.

Re:Fourth Amendment ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pff. Almost anyone can name the amendments in the Bill of Rights!

First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, Eighth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Tenth Amendment.

Re:Fourth Amendment ?

[xbytor]

>, especially the 3rd is so irrelevant

Not true. There is a civil case ini the northeast where somebody is suing the police on 3rd amendment grounds. The police wanted to use this guys house as a part of some police operation. He refused but the cops intruded anyway and the guy got arrested.

Constitutionality?

[Anonymous Coward]

But where is their warrant? The Constitution says you have implicit privacy in your affairs and your papers, electronic devices are merely storage devices for electronic papers. Thus, the Supremes should rule on the side of caution and require a warrant.

I got a hint for the USSC

[kilodelta]

It's called the 4th Amendment! You know, Secure in your person, papers, things and places. That smart phone counts as thing that is PROTECTED from unwarranted search and seizure.

That it actually got all the way up to the USSC is appalling. It should have been vigorously quashed at the district level and affirmed by the appellate and that be the end of it.

Younger Generations

[whistlingtony]

Younger generations don't seem to care? It seems to me like younger generations are the ONLY ones that care. The older generations are the ones that got us here.

Don't put shit on the youth. They're active. They care. OUR apathy and ignorance got us here.

Re:Younger Generations

[joe_frisch]

Some day younger generations may learn why we care, but I hope not for their sake.

Re:Younger Generations

[evil_aaronm]

I blame most, if not all, of our problems on baby boomers. Spoiled rotten little fuckin' brats. They had it great, and then they ruined it for the rest of us, trying to keep things great for themselves, because, of course, it's all about them. I wish they'd all just die already.

Re:Younger Generations

[dbraden]

Sorry, it's not that simple. It seems to me that most don't care, regardless of generation. And, there are those in all generations that do care.

Our apathy and ignorance got us here, just as the younger generations' apathy and ignorance will take us further. I truly hope I'll eventually be proven wrong.

Re:Younger Generations

[dbIII]

Girls are having to fight for the rights that their grandmothers already won. It's not so bad for males like myself but there definitely has been a slide backwards, so someday soon the general population will understand first hand what caused the formation of Unions, or maybe even what a good idea democracy is.

Re:Younger Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

As a late boomer I tend to agree (except for the "die" part!). I particularly hate the way boomers pushed down the driving, age of consent and other barriers for youth good times, yet now they have aged they seem to want to raise all those limits again! Boomers had the economic good times and have achieved great things but power tends to corrupt. The contraceptive pill is what ended the Boomer demographic "boom", and youth are now are a relatively small slice of Western society. Today's youth simply don't have the economic power than boomers had even as teens, which means that most of their culture does not have the revolutionary qualities of culture in the 1960-70s. In fact, today's teens are often frighteningly conservative. With postmodernism, even radical trends are often just rehash and are quickly turned to cash.

Re:Younger Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to agree with you. I personally refer to them as the Selfish Generation, being as that they're the first generation in many that actually left succeeding generations with less (opportunity, etc.) than they themselves had. Worst thing is that one can't even hope to try to explain to them the difference between then to several years ago to now.

Re:Younger Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

Younger generations don't seem to care? It seems to me like younger generations are the ONLY ones that care. The older generations are the ones that got us here.

Don't put shit on the youth. They're active. They care. OUR apathy and ignorance got us here.

I used to agree with you...until I realized that Washington said the same thing about his ignorant British aristocracy.

Don't pin that shit on any generation. The path from good to bad to worse has been around since the dawn of mankind, born out of sheer complexity.

Re:Younger Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame most, if not all, of our problems on baby boomers. Spoiled rotten little fuckin' brats. They had it great, and then they ruined it for the rest of us, trying to keep things great for themselves, because, of course, it's all about them. I wish they'd all just die already.

You're 17 years old and just graduated high school. You turn 18 two weeks later, you got a new job lined up paying good money, and can't wait to go out drinking with your older buddies after your birthday.

Then you realize you're not in college, and your draft card shows up in the mail the next day.

If you made it back home alive from the Vietnam War and lucky enough to not be mentally and/or physically fucked, you were still chastised, hated, and even spit upon by your fellow Americans.

Fuck You for thinking baby boomers had it "great". Two words for you: Mandatory Draft. Try for once just imagining that. Fighting for your real life at 18 years old instead of just worrying about ranking up on COD with an XBox controller in your hand. At least this generation was given a choice to participate in such nightmares that were as pointless as our wars are today.

And no, I'm not even close to being a baby boomer. I just can't stand retarded levels of ignorance, particularly from those who can't see the narcissism issue in millennials. Like this generation is any less self-serving.

Re:Younger Generations

[geekmux]

I blame most, if not all, of our problems on baby boomers. Spoiled rotten little fuckin' brats. They had it great, and then they ruined it for the rest of us, trying to keep things great for themselves, because, of course, it's all about them. I wish they'd all just die already.

I blame most, if not all, of our problems on Millennials. Spoiled rotten little fuckin' brats. They demand to have everything for free, and then they ruined it for the rest of us with invasions of privacy, trying to keep things free for themselves, because, of course, it's all about them. I wish they'd all just pay already.

If anything, this proves that each generation is nothing more than human, and each has it's own grand fallacies. I seem to recall a Great Depression somewhere in our history boo...woah, no freakin' way...a Civil War? Seriously? Yes, let's blame the baby boomers some more.

Re:Younger Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

Every generation hates the boomers: millenials, Y generation, X generation. They don't have the same animosity toward each other. Maybe boomers are just bad at PR?

Re:Younger Generations

[gregor-e]

And let's not forget "duck and cover", the drill boomers all learned as impressionable little tykes. Boomers lived under a constant sense that fiery radioactive death was always a few minutes away, entirely dependent on the whims of inscrutable foreigners whose desire to see our nation in flames was held in check only by the certainty that we'd do the same to them. Talk about a recipe for wholesale stress disorder.

Re:Younger Generations

[evil_aaronm]

Who do you think created the Millennials? BTW, I'm not one - I was born right at the tail end of the Boomers, post '64. It was Boomers and their helicoptering, because God knows their kids had to be "special" and #1 in everything. After Boomers got to do whatever they wanted - smoke weed, drink booze, pull pranks in school, etc - they decided that it was no longer "harmless fun" to do any of that stuff, as if only THEY were allowed to live life a little, so they smothered everyone with that "zero tolerance" BS. And it isn't Millennials creating policy to invade privacy: it's Boomers.

Re:Younger Generations

[evil_aaronm]

I'm a child of the Vietnam era; I saw the news reports every night until we left Saigon in '75. If you were drafted, you must've been part of the wrong demographic.

But guess why we don't have mandatory draft anymore? Because Boomers said, "Not my child!" and threatened any politician that dared suggest it. And who created the Millennials? That's right: Boomer parents. And they're narcissistic little shits because their Boomer parents hovered over them, coddling them, treating them as if they're "special" and God's gift to humanity - because, for God's sake, a Boomer created the precious little thing - preventing them from learning how hard life really could be, leading to spoiled, entitled kids. So if you want to bitch about how crappy the younger generations are, Boomers get the blame for that, too.

Re:Younger Generations

[Reziac]

When I was a kid, the air raid sirens were still tested at noon every Sunday.

And I grew up in the #2 nuclear target city in North America (NORAD's backup facility).

I never saw any of this 'wholesale stress disorder'.

Re:Younger Generations

[snizzitch]

In my purely anecdotal experience, it is the older folks who are far worse about holding authoritarian viewpoints, never questioning their assumption that if the gov't wants/needs any particular power then that want/need is completely legitimate, etc. Every person who has told me "Snowden is a traitor" has been > 50 yrs old.

Sure, allow it

[Murdoch5]

Allow the police the right to search the phone, but don't make it a law that the accused has to unlock or unencrypt the data on the phone. I have no problem wiht the police looking through my phone, but if you want to get inside any of my data then be prepared to crack it.

Re:Sure, allow it

[Scutter]

If you want to allow the police to look through your phone without a warrant, you're more than welcome to. I would appreciate it if you'd leave the rest of us out it.

Re:Sure, allow it

[artor3]

Some people don't encrypt their phones, but the police should still need a warrant to search them. The police don't get to search your house just because you forgot to lock your doors.

Re:Sure, allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow the police the right to search the phone, but don't make it a law that the accused has to unlock or unencrypt the data on the phone. I have no problem wiht the police looking through my phone, but if you want to get inside any of my data then be prepared to crack it.

Easy. http://www.androidauthority.com/xry-software-crack-ios-android-70132/
This is automated these days. You should be more careful.

The Feds put backdoors into everything modern, so the apis are already there to not even need to crack. You may be trading your cheap (but clean) low-encryption device for one that offers OVAR 9,000-bit encryption... with the catch that some hardware signal triggers its yield-to-cops() function so it's laughably less work to penetrate your data and unlock, than your ancient device's real implementation (backed by more honesty) would present to them.

Re:They should NOT allow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Man arrested for warning drivers of speed trap
https://www.google.ca/search?q=texas+arrested+for+speed+trap+sign+on+public+property

Journalist Jailed for Civil Contempt
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/01/15/alabama-journalist-jailed-civil-contempt-political-stench/

Arrested for joking about peanut butter at airport
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/12/hannibals-crossing-of-the-alps-tsa-arizona-man-sues-agency-after-arrest-for-airport-joke/

Nearly Half Of Black Males, 40 Percent Of White Males Are Arrested
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/half-of-blacks-arrested-23_n_4549620.html

Americans get arrested way too easily. Cops should be required to get a warrant before doing cell-phone searches. Has a judge ever declined to issue a warrant requested by a cop? If so, those are the "creative/oddball corner cases" I'd like to hear about.

Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is this when the NSA is already searching everything with no warrant? Sure it's good but how about worrying about the bigger issue first?

READ the 4th, will you?

[fyngyrz]

A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".

Actually, the 4th defines what is reasonable WRT search and seizure, and that is: probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, describing the place(s) to be searched and the thing(s) to be searched for, which stipulations, when met, are the minimum standard for issuance of a warrant, and the WARRANT is what says, finally, that it's ok to search and/or sieze, and what, and where. Until that warrant is issued pursuant to the above conditions, you don't have a "reasonable" search, what you have is government out of control.

Here's the thing to internalize: The 4th defines what is reasonable. It's not about what you or I or a cop thinks is reasonable; there's a clear standard, and THAT is what is reasonable until or unless an amendment changes the 4th. No sane or sustainable argument can be made for the presence of the detailed requirements in the 4th if they are to be ignored. And clearly, they are not to be ignored.

Re:READ the 4th, will you?

[Sarten-X]

The 4th defines what is reasonable

Nope.

The Fourth Amendment declares two things. First, there are to be no unreasonable searches or seizures. Second, separated by the word "and" in the text, warrants must be specific. The Fourth Amendment was written to stop the oppression tactics the British used to disrupt businesses, where the British officers would search someone, seizing everything vital for daily life, so regardless of whether the citizen was actually ever accused of a crime, they'd be unable to continue functioning. That power was enabled by a general warrant, which the British government used to authorize a person to search anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The Fourth Amendment cuts off the general warrants by requiring particularity, and prohibits searching without prior reason by prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not attempt to define what is reasonable, nor does it even require that warrants be issued for searches.

Re:READ the 4th, will you?

[fyngyrz]

You've confused what activist, oath-violating judges have rubber stamped, with what the amendment actually says.

PS, basic English lesson: When I I say "those lovely dogs and cats are animals", I'm NOT saying that dogs are lovely and cats are animals.

Re:READ the 4th, will you?

[Sarten-X]

On the contrary. You've confused what the myth-loving Internet has fed you with what the courts (and a few centuries of legal scholars) have actually upheld. I highly recommend you read that whole section of The Illustrated Guide To Law that I keep linking to. It's actually written by a lawyer, from a neutral perspective, and does a great job of explaining why the law is interpreted the way it is, rather than being interpreted according to the demands of a naive public.

P.S., a not-so-basic English lesson: the word "and" may be used to join two independent clauses, and it may also be used to join elements of a list. The Fourth Amendment uses the former structure, but your example uses the latter.

Re:READ the 4th, will you?

[fyngyrz]

No. I'm not confused at all. I read the 4th amendment. I find a description of search and seizure, something they were very concerned with. In the same description -- in the same sentence -- I find a precise series of events that must occur in order to issue a warrant. -- the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required for the search, and indeed, referring to how things work, we find the "search warrant."

According to your (pitiful) reasoning, a warrant is not required for a search, which is (a) a ridiculous assertion, and (b) not supported by the 4th, and (c) makes the text in the 4th that describes the process for a warrant utterly without relevance (or in other words, what is a warrant required for?) and (d) "(un)reasonable" is not in any way a useful term to be used with regard to government action (remember, the bill of rights is a series of curbs on government action) unless we know exactly what it means, and viola, what do we find? A definition of reasonable.

To put it another way: If warrants aren't required for search and/or seizure, why the heck are the requirements for one set out? What do they mean? You need a warrant for... arrest? But again, apparently, you don't according today's twisted jurisprudence. So you don't need one to arrest, you don't need one to search, you don't need one to seize... apparently, in your world, these words are just there to amuse the reader.

Look, I'm not arguing the state of modern jurisprudence, other than to say it's absurd on many levels, I'm just looking at the document the framers wrote for us common people so we'd know what the limits of the government are. While the document isn't perfect, it's clearly not intended to be a mystery.

Warrants are required of the government for search, seizure, and arrest. If they weren't required, it would simply say "if the government feels it needs to, it can search, seize, or arrest any time, any day, for any reason.' And it sure as fuckballs doesn't say that. It also wouldn't be in the bill of rights: It'd be in the enumerated powers.

Re:READ the 4th, will you?

[Sarten-X]

the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required

What makes it so obvious, given that it doesn't actually say so? Do consider that no courts in 200 years have seen it as such. SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution shows a preference for having warrants, but doesn't actually require it anywhere. Please do some research into established case law before responding. Injecting your own opinions into the law is the very problem the law exists to avoid.

Should smartphone content really be "evidence?"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the days of landlines, *everyone* had multiple people using the same phone. I still do that to this day with my smartphone. Friends, siblings, etc. use my phone all the time, and why shouldn't they? You can't assume anything on my smartphone was done by me alone. Same with my PC. Back before cell phones, if someone ran out of gas and walked to the nearest house to borrow their phone, it wasn't unusual at all. I was also always happy to show off my Commodore 64 and Amiga to all my friends or relatives. Why are we assumed not to have this privilege anymore? At what point did we *become* our phone or PC? I'm not a phone number or IP address, I'm a human being. Don't I have the right to be courteous enough to let others use my equipment anymore?

Re:Should smartphone content really be "evidence?"

[mikael]

It happened when the phone networks switched from data-over-voice channels (modems screeching over telephone lines) to voice-over-data channels (digital telephone networks). Once wireless telephone networks became digital, it was easier taking a TCP/IP stack and porting it over to the wireless modem that it was to write something completely new. But TCP/IP required an IP address, which in turn invoked the tradition of every IP address having a registered system administrator and owner.

Re:Should smartphone content really be "evidence?"

[doesnothingwell]

Don't I have the right to be courteous enough to let others use my equipment anymore?

The advice of your douchebag^H lawyer would be, no.

Re:Should smartphone content really be "evidence?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So what are the odds the courts will take into account not everyone chooses to consider their phone or PC as an extension of themselves? It's like we're falling into the data collection trap Facebook and others (such as the NSA) want us to. All their efforts to monetize or take away our privacy are only effective as long as people buy into the idea that their "identity" is tied to a device of any sort. Ford may be tracking new vehicles, but what about when you lend your car to someone? How can reasonable doubt not be an issue? Anything you can do with your phone or PC, so could someone else, whether friend or hacker. As soon as this becomes "hard evidence" then we're all in trouble.

Oblig Freefall quote - Re:Fishing expedition

[D4C5CE]

'fishing expedition' and search prior to an arrest, without warrant, IS unreasonable.

Statistics are a poor excuse to stop anyone.

SPOILER ALERT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?

SPOILER ALERT!

No.

The "Supreme" Court has become as much a bunch of political jokes as congress. In case it hasn't become obvious, they're in the employ of the same masters who own the Demopublican Party. Those dickheads believe it's important to listen in on eveyone's conversations, even though everyone now knows they're listening in which means of course no one they're trying to catch is stupid enough to say anything incriminating over a phone, which renders the efforts useless and pointless, but they're going to do it anyway because stopping terror was never the reason, listening in on people and jerking off was.

Stick to the purpose of the search

[Zaphod-AVA]

The reason why police can do a simple search of a detained person, and look inside containers, is to ensure the safety of the officer. It is a light search to ensure that the detained person is not armed. Until I can install a weapon on my cell phone, looking inside it as if it were a 'container', is obviously abuse.

Re:Stick to the purpose of the search

[spire3661]

Someone made a 'derringer' style pistol out of a cell phone case once, so cops use that as an excuse nationwide.

Re:Stick to the purpose of the search

[EmagGeek]

"But there may be an app running on the smart phone to summon the detainee's friends to come help by attacking the police officer.

Therefore it is well within the limits of a search incident to arrest to examine every bit of data on a cell phone to ensure that is not happening."

This will basically be what the opinion says. I'd put money on it.

Re:Stick to the purpose of the search

[Reziac]

Explain to me how a weapon inside a container is an immediate threat to officers' safety??

One more thing

[dbIII]

Whistle blowers always make a noise where EVERYONE can hear them so the "3 different foreign countries" is bullshit. We keep hearing now in hindsight of people who tried to go through the proper channels on the sort of things Snowden revealed - all that changed is that they destroyed their careers. To make a difference the noise had to be made where the world could see it. You can't magically stop people who are not US citizens from reading a US newspaper.
So I think the "3 different foreign countries" excuse is somewhat childish, it offends me that you think I am stupid enough to fall for it and it disgusts me that you are so much of an amoral weasel as to try.

Re:One more thing

[sumdumass]

I do not think you are paying attention. There is absolutely no excuse for the leaks pertaining to legitimate surveillance of foreign countries, terrorist organizations and so on. Sure, domestic spying, rat it out all you want. Informing about our spying on Mexico, China, Germany, Russia, terrorist cells in the middle east, suspected terrorist cells in Europe, exposing this from China, Russia, and a UK news organization, that is all beyond whistle blowing and deliberate attempts to harm the US. He is an absolute traitor and deserves a traitor's end.

I do not care if it disgusts you. You are ignoring relevant facts in order to maintain some fantasy about a knight in shinning armor that doesn't pan out in the real world. Not once in the 3 separate replies to the same post have you even bothered addressing the problem of Snowden giving foreign nations secrets about how we collect intelligence on them or what we know about them. You can sugar coat a turd all you want but it will still stink the place up. Snowden is just that turd.

Re:One more thing

[dbIII]

I understand all right, I just think you can't separate "my country right or wrong" from individuals who will use that to sucker people like you. You seem to worship King and not Country - utterly tragic when George Washington worked so hard to stop that sort of thing.

fantasy about a knight in shinning armor

The act matters more than the person. History has shown that if you can's get dirt on someone then very stupid lies are used instead - like calling the millionaire Charlie Chaplain a communist because his opposition to fascism was upsetting powerful people in politics.

Re:One more thing

[sumdumass]

I understand all right, I just think you can't separate "my country right or wrong" from individuals who will use that to sucker people like you. You seem to worship King and not Country - utterly tragic when George Washington worked so hard to stop that sort of thing.

why don't you provide some examples of this. You will find them hard to find unless you are so delusional that you think comments about the rule of law are of this type. But then the entire world would see how oxymoronic you are.

The act matters more than the person. History has shown that if you can's get dirt on someone then very stupid lies are used instead - like calling the millionaire Charlie Chaplain a communist because his opposition to fascism was upsetting powerful people in politics.

Yeah, like Chaplin's problems had nothing to do with his creation- Monsieur Verdoux. It was all because of his parody making fun of Hitler and fascism. I suppose the fact he was awarded the International Peace Prize by the communist-led World Peace Council happened after the claims of being a communist were out.

Once again, you seem to be missing the important pieces of the information. The "act" that happened to matter the most here is the release of legitimate intelligence on other nations and the methods in which we acquired that information. For that, he is a traitor and deserves a traitor's end.

Re:One more thing

[dbIII]

Are you REALLY calling a Hollywood millionaire a communist?

Re:One more thing

[dbIII]

I do not care if it disgusts you

Don't you get it - you who is proposing a roll back to before Washington is calling somebody a traitor. Of course it disgusts me.

Re:One more thing

[sumdumass]

The only person proposing anything of the sort is completely in your own mind and nowhere near the reality everyone else lives in. I'm done with you. You are now became too silly to even be disguised as legitimate.

King before Country

[dbIII]

My point is that since your "reality" is in direct defiance of what George Washington stood for who the hell are you to go around calling someone a traitor?

Lets make an App

[soumen_78]

Lets make an app, where the Police before searching your phone has to put in some 'warrant number', which he has to get from the Court!!.... Although we ( http://www.xcubegames.com/ ) we are in mobile games, but still can help you out with this. :)