Replies

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."

Agreed. Robinson opened a door but I don’t think it really applies and Edwards seems wrongly decided but I still have some reading to do. It will be interesting to read the 1st Circuit’s reasoning here. I think SCOTUS has over time trashed the idea of being Secure in Person and Papers.

But here’s the thing for the cops to consider ... this was your garden variety low level crack dealer. Pushing a few buttons on the cellphone would be low risk. But damn, consider a jihadist who has a dude like Q outfitting the phones. With a button press or two, they could have set off a car bomb [damn, NSA will ALL OVER this post] or worse. The last thing I’d want to do is to mess with any of their electronics.

In fact, if I was a forensics guy, I’d want a lab with a mini cell tower so the phone wouldn’t lose signal but controlled by me so it couldn’t make an outside call. Even then I’d treat it like a rattlesnake.

But I digress. Searching a cellphone or even reading a pencil-and-paper address book should not be done without a warrant.

"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."

Yeah, there's that... :-)