Posted on 08/30/2018 5:46:16 PM PDT by vannrox
Good news: the state of California can now seize and search your cellphone without a warrant. The new regime will only affect people who have already been arrested, so it’s not as if police officers will be able to search your cellphone at routine traffic stops. But still: yeah, it’s sorta lame. In 2011, even more of your rights will be chipped away.
The California court that ruled in favor of this new way of being referred to an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling that basically says anytime you’ve been arrested you automatically forfeit any right to privacy to “anything of importance they find on the arrestee’s body.”
Clearly the California court has deemed that cellphones and the like are “of importance,’ so they’re now subject to police seizure, presumably as they’re looking to find evidence of a crime. Back in the day, you would have expected to be served with a warrant to allow police to look for evidence, but not more.
Spy Report: A man has just accused of being “an Apple convention” at CES because John, Matt, and I are sitting on a bench writing with MacBooks. It’s slightly embarrassing. I’m not an Apple fanboy, sir, it just so happens that I bought a MacBook three years ago.
Look at the date in the article! 2011.
Riley v California says this is a no go. In 2014.
L8r
Eventual.
All these idiots who repeat pablum about no right to privacy in the Constitution will find they have no rights in their own lives.
The state will not be the final word on this.
Not an attorney, but this seems unconstitutional.
California just loves to waste our hard-earned tax dollars on frivolous laws that will immediately be challenged in Court, with nothing to show for their loss except a final bill in the tens of millions.
This is a seven year old article.
The Supreme Court said this couldn’t go on in 2014.
I have no idea why this was posted as news.
Makes no sense. Nobody chooses to be arrested, so there is no way they can voluntarily forfeit their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Sigh.
SCOTUS did. In 2014.
This is an old article from 2011.
Well, it’s old, stale and out of date.
See Riley v. California where the Supreme Court shot it in the head in 2014.
They will give you a pat on the back.
Bingo! Finally someone read beyond the headline.
Kinda pointless since we learned the feds harvest and inventory all of your data into collection centers for future use in a searchable database. Unless you communicate over a ham radio like Fusion GPS Nellie Ohr and Bruce Ohr at the DOJ.
Arrest for STRAW POSSESSION = Get phone seized, searched
I’d heard that if you lock your phone with face recognition or a fingerprint, they can get into it. But if it’s a password, they can’t.
Don’t know if this is correct, though.
being arrested isn’t being charged or jailed.
they couls actually use arrest instead of detain and therefore illegally search your stuff.
Don’t know about what can be done on the street, but in court you can be required to reveal your password if it can be “proven” that you know it. a man in Baltimore has been in jail for years for refusing to reveal a password.
If tech contimues to only offer cheap security the courts will change the requirement from ‘proof’ to ‘probable cause’- or such- so they can function.
Of course in many countries you are going to reveal any password to save yourself and your family from suffering.
This was overturned, and it’s seven years old. Why is this thread here?
Even if was still in effect, good luck searching mine, haven’t even known where it is for the last 3 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.