Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Complains About Getting a Warrant To Search Mobile Phones
An anonymous reader writes "The US government has entered its reply brief in the US vs. Wurie case and its argument in favor of warrantless searches of arrestees' cell phones contains some truly terrible suppositions.
The government argues that impartial technological advancements somehow favor criminals. As it sees it, the path to the recovery of evidence should not be slowed by encryption or wiping or even the minimal effort needed to obtain a warrant. From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this. Every argument in favor of warrantless searches contains some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.'"
It's almost like citizens should have their papers and effects safe from warrant-less searches. Crazy, I know.
Do some real investigative work and make your freaking case. If the only evidence you have on someone is contained within their cell phone, perhaps they aren't guilty of anything they ought to be getting arrested for.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack [it] open
And fire-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained in their house. What's the difference?
We're here to "help" you! Now get down on the floor before we tazer your ass. Papers please! No, no, no. This would be more like, "life history, all data relating to everything you do ever, please!"
lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.
A warrant has nothing to do with this capability. If the perp sees you coming and wipes the phone*, the presence of a warrant has no effect on this. On the other hand, if you can secure the phone prior to the wipe, why can't you put it in an evidence bag, ask a judge for a warrant and then read it.
*IANAL, but it is my understanding that the existence of a warrant has little bearing on a charge of destroying evidence.
Have gnu, will travel.
tl;dr
DoJ complains about 4th Amendment - wants it repealed.
It is. You just have to think further ahead.
The perfect crime is not one that never gets solved. It's one that is easy to solve. And with all the technical gadgetry at your disposal, delivering a believable patsy has never been easier.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If the person really was "tech-savvy" then there would not be any implicating information on his/her phone.
Unless you're talking about petty criminals who don't have the resources to use a secondary phone that is not tied to them.
But that just means that the DOJ wants to kill the 4th Amendment to chase petty criminals. Fuck that!
You are aware that the constitution has been amended 10 times in the last century, right? Most recently in 1992, when laws effecting congressional salaries were delayed from taking effect until after the next election. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ) And only once was a previous amendment touched: when the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
Granted a national convention has never actually been called, but that's largely because any time state support for an amendment approaches the point where it became likely that a national convention could be called (3/4 of states), the national congress has instead proposed a similar amendment themselves. Presumably to at least keep the specific wording under their own control rather than risk losing any more power than necessary to the state legislatures.
And frankly it seems silly to worry that powerful interests will buy up the state legislatures in order to allow a national convention to craft a suitably seedy amendment - far easier to buy up the much smaller national congress to do the exact same thing without all the extra fanfare and beuracratic complexity. You'd still have to buy up the state legislatures to get it passed, but buying a single vote is likely far cheaper and more reliable than getting an appropriately worded amendment agreed through such a large group.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
2/3 of the States.
It takes 3/4 to ratify the amendment, but only 2/3 to call a Constitutional Convention.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The bill of rights shouldn't even be necessary ... if you you read the Constitution, Congress, the President, etc don't have any authority to do any of that stuff.
The 9th and 10th amendments exist because some forward thinking people realized if you have a list of things which are not allowed, sometime in the future, the government would treat that as the only things which are not allowed.
Captcha: treason.
... It pays to protect yourself like a criminal.
Lock your tech down so that when they come they have to say pretty please to get access.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.