In California no warrant needed to seach a smartphone

[dsvochak]

"If you get arrested in California, better hope there are no incriminating texts or e-mails or sensitive data stored on your phone." http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/01/ ... ne.gahran/

There's a link to the decision in the article

[killer]

That poses all sorts of questions over privacy.

Drug dealers in the UK use public telephone boxes ... they are about the only people who do, apart from tramps wanting shelter from the weather! Calls are rarely traced if the call is short enough, and anyone could have made the call.

It seems a bit naive to use a personal telephone for dubious activities.

[jdrou]

Note this important point though:

What if access to your phone is locked with a security code or pattern?

According to Catherine Crump of the American Civil Liberties Union, "The police can ask you to unlock the phone -- which many people will do -- but they almost certainly cannot compel you to unlock your phone without the involvement of a judge,"

And if Ohio Supreme Court has already ruled in the opposite, it may end up in U.S. Supreme Court.

[BillMorrow]

it seems to me:
the ramifications of such a warrantless search are nearly limitless..

once you include the cell phone there would come a time it would be extended to a cars computer to prove the driver WAS exceeding the speed limit..

can't give up your liberty for safety..
if you do pretty soon you'll have neither..
(jefferson?)

[Tõnis]

My BlackBerry wipes itself after 3-10 incorrect password attempts. I set mine for ten, but perhaps I'll lower it to three if I go to California; that way I can easily wipe the device by entering the password incorrectly thrice. California is ridiculous. I would not unlock my phone for the police. Involuntary servitude (i.e slavery) would be an issue to raise in addition to the usual Fourth amendment search issues. No citizen has to work for the police by entering keystrokes!

[jdrou]

can't give up your liberty for safety..
if you do pretty soon you'll have neither..
(jefferson?)

generally believed to be Franklin (although it isn't certain; it was on the title page of a book published by Franklin of which he was not the author)

[BillMorrow]

franklin is also credited with the quip to a woman as he was exiting the constitutional convention in phila. when she asked "what have you given us, mr. franklin?", "a republic, if you can keep it"..

a person i know keeps saying to me that the constitution was written by a bunch of old men 220~ years ago and things have changed since then..
i thought about this for a while then said to this person that, first off, jefferson and many of the other writers were not old in 1789 and that i thought it was written to restrain men (or man) and that mans nature had NOT changed in the 220 years since..

so i still believe that one or two more drug buyers still on the street is a small price to retain liberty for all..
and i apply that belief to more than an illegal warrantless search..

[Tõnis]

so i still believe that one or two more drug buyers still on the street is a small price to retain liberty for all..
and i apply that belief to more than an illegal warrantless search..

Yes. And similarly it's better to let ten guilty men go free than convict one innocent one.

[BillMorrow]

you won't get an argument from me except to add that with good police work those ten guilty should not get a free pass due to sloppy police work..

going on a fishing expedition at a traffic stop joe the plumber and searching his cell phone without just cause..?
what judge would issue a warrant..?

OTH if you are exiting a bank with a gun in one hand and a bag of cash in the other would any judge NOT issue a search warrant for the cell phone in the getaway car..?

the police need to take the time to do the job..
keep the paperwork handy and call the judge on duty..

as for drugs and that whole thing, i thought prohibition in the 1920's was a lesson learned.. i guess not yet..