Reeeelleeee?
Who says the Government has an absolute right to anything and everything?
Shall we print using the King’s paper?
Shalle we submit oir sermons, for their review and approval?
Do they have an absolute right to tell us who we may confer with?
Share our thought?
Force us to give up our Nom de Juers?
Yey, the government should be unbridled?
A Lois Lerner should be allowed to act in accoradance with her fascist belief, harming another American? Disadvantaging them?
The EPA can run roughshod over whomever they please ?????
We lost all our records but, YOU are still in jeopardy of whatever we decide suits our agenda????
A policeman should have the unfettered right to peruse your cell phone? For a traffic stop? For a DUI?
For whatever reason....they deem?
You are a rug???
I don’t believe it!!!
Yes. With a proper warrant, as a reasonable and therefore constitutional search and seizure. My understanding is that in most states this would mean myself and my possessions can be searched for a DUI but not for a normal traffic stop.
Right of search is, of course, not an unfettered right, as it is only reasonable if the "fetters" of the Constitution are complied with.
Electronic data storage is obviously something the Founders didn't have. But I see no reason why it should be considered to have greater rights to privacy than older forms of record-keeping.
For example, my understanding is that if I'm arrested, legally, for any reason, my wallet and other records I have on my person at the time will be searched, with the information found potentially used against me at trial, perfectly constitutionally.
Cell phones are simply an extension of this. If I don't want evidence used against me, I shouldn't be carrying it around with me.
There are, of course, ways to encrypt this data, and a person can certainly use them legally, just as he would have the right to keep his dead tree journals in code. A person should not be compelled to provide a password, just as he, I assume, cannot be compelled to decode a paper journal if doing so violates his 5A rights.
But the cops have every right to try on their own to break a phone's encryption, just as they do to break a code on paper.
If people choose, for convenience, to carry around with them a device containing evidence that can be used against them, that's their problem, just as if they chose to carry a paper diary with similar information.
That authorities may sometimes cross the bounds of what is constitutionally reasonable does not mean any and all electronic storage should be protected.