Supreme Court to consider whether warrant is needed to seize and search cell phones

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/supreme-court-privacy/index.html#cnn-disqus-area

This is that moment when you expect Judge Camacho to come out with his big ass medallion and a powdered wig to explain why cell phone searches are bad. And it'll have nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.

I mean, I'm glad the cops were able to bust gangbangers, I guess, but they couldn't formulate a case without getting a warrant for the cell phone? Really?

 

just password-protect your phone, and they don't have much of a choice...

They'll either need to get a warrant ordering/requiring that you provide the password, or they'll ask you to sign a form consenting to the search of the phone.

You'd be surprised how many people will agree, thinking they're smarter than the police.

 

I encrypt the txt messages and cell calls that I think need to be encrypted. They can access my phone all they want. lol Also secure wipe the "empty" space on my phone.

 

Missing the point. Why does this even need to make it to the Supreme Court? That means its gone through a bunch of lower courts and people keep saying its okay to seize and search cell phones without a warrant.

 

By this logic, if I lock my door, it doesn't matter whether they need a warrant to come into my home.

Make no mistake, I'm doing nothing illegal with my cell phone, yet this is still a concern.

 

IIRC, the appeals are based on an earlier decision that 'things' on one's person may be searched.

i.e. pants pockets, cigarette packs, wallets, etc.

 

That's exactly right, and searching your phone can be more far reaching than what's in your pockets.

 

"I'm sorry officer, I have nothing to hide but I can not and will not give you my password."

Get a warrant, copper!

 

Part of me wants to do this just to see how far it would go. I'll even "clench" while being interrogated. It's all part of my retirement plan

 

Well, if a cop tries using the "Well, I smell alcohol" as a way to trip you up into a search of your car don't reply "The [email protected] you do ya' lying sack of shit."

 

LMAO, now that's funny. Why can I see you standing along side the road, butt all clenched, teeth grinding, smashing your butt cheeks together with your hands screaming "NO, YOU ARE NOT LOOKING INTO MY ASSHOLE!!!"

 

That's better than being butt naked, face down, ass up yelling "gimme $1.2 Million and you can stick a gopro up my butt!!!"

 

Why do I have a feeling that's his Plan "B"?

 

This. Dave, I'm running out of Clorox wipes. Stop being sensible.

But here's a question: can they hold your phone pending obtaining a warrant? I think not, but if it's evidence. . .

Anyone?

 

No idea, I'm not a lawyer.

An ice age is coming, I'm thinking like and agreeing with Che' Allred.

 

If I haven't been charged with a crime...what is there evidence of?

 

between this and the NSA it is obvious we are losing MAJOR chunks of freedom daily.

 

No different than needed a warrant or order to access the pre-collision data stored in your vehicle's computer system after an accident. Well, except that I doubt my phone could cause severe bodily harm or death if used wrong. Then again, there is the whole drunk dialing dilemma.

 

Kenny, evidence that a crime has occurred always comes before someone is charged with the crime. How could it be the other way around? Sometimes, there's lots of evidence that a crime occurred, but no one is charged with the crime because the evidence doesn't well enough indicate who committed it. Remember, evidence can be a lot of things. It can be physical evidence, like a smoking gun, or a bloody knife, or it can simply be what people say. Furthermore, if law enforcement has evidence that a crime has occurred and a good reason to believe that an object (car, house, cell phone) contains more evidence of the crime, then it can seize the object in an effort to preserve the potential evidence and petition a court for a warrant to search the object. That "good reason to believe" can be a lot of things, too, and whether, or not, it constitutes the probable cause necessary to make the search lawful is up to the judge. If law enforcement gets the warrant, then it can search the object for the evidence. If it doesn't get the warrant, then it must return the object to its owner unless there's a compelling reason not to. At least, that's the way it's supposed to be.