[MeganC]

Good news for civil liberties, at least in California. The police can't search you without probable cause that you've committed a crime...crazy that the California Supreme Court would side with the Constitution on anything!

[WENDLE]

We need to liberate this state.

[raygunfan]

how do folks feel though in cases like this when it is revealed he had child porn on his phone, but cant do anything because the search wasnt legal.....

[Boogieman]

“Police officers may only conduct a search following a traffic stop if they believe there is probable cause a crime was committed”

Finally, a California court rules correctly on something. Now just rule that bringing in a “drug dog” to sniff around your car to pretend to give you probable cause is itself a search, and we’ll be getting somewhere.

[fella]

Just another case of,

Special rights

For Bikes

?

[fruser1]

USSC already decided in 2014 that a search warrant is needed to search a cell phone.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/

[Strac6]

This nothing new. There was no way the memory of his phone held a weapon.

[henkster]

Police officers may only conduct a search following a traffic stop if they believe there is probable cause a crime was committed

Well this statement isn't exactly groundbreaking. It's been the law in Federal Court at least since Carroll v. U. S. in 1925 and was applied to the states in Wolf v. Colorado in 1949.

[Mr. Douglas]

I’ve been stopped by cops quite a bit. I’ve never had one ask to search my phone. It also takes a swipe pattern to open it.

This is weird.

[Paulie]

I bet Anthony Weiner was on speed dial.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Great reason to lock your phone with a passcode (not fingerprint).

[trebb]

Good news for civil liberties, at least in California. The police can't search you without probable cause that you've committed a crime...crazy that the California Supreme Court would side with the Constitution on anything!

Hard to say if it's good or bad in this particular case - the guy allowed them to search his phone just because they asked. If he had said "no" and they did it, then I would agree 100%.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Far as I know, this is the correct Constitutional call. The police can’t just go on a fishing expedition. They can’t subject a person to a search if that person is not under arrest, if there is no search warrant, and if there is no probable cause.

I thought this was basic.

[LouieFisk]

“When one of the officers asked if he could search through Macabeo’s pockets, the cyclist told him he could.”
==
Made his mistake in saying “yes” to the body search.

[umgud]

Rolling a stop sign on a bicycle? Is that the same as doing it with a car? Hell, that’s over $500 in CA.

BTW, never consent to a search. Make them get a warrant.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The police can't search you without probable cause that you've committed a crime...

What about "reasonable suspicion"?

[Organic Panic]

“I know you’re doing your job but I do not consent to searches officer”

flexyourrights.com

[zeugma]

I do not see where they mention the age of the cyclist at the time. The 'child porn' found on the phone could very well have been his girlfriend.

Reporting is dead in this country.