Shouldn't that be the other way around? How can one be considered "secure in their person and effects" when the police can seize one's personal effects without a warrant?
“After seizing the cell phone officers secured a search warrant...”
Shouldn’t that be the other way around? How can one be considered “secure in their person and effects” when the police can seize one’s personal effects without a warrant?
*********************
A fair question with a fine distinction.
The phone had been seized, but (allegedly) not gone through for the evidence - text messages according to the story - sought by the police. Thus the warrant to actually dig through the phone’s records.
This comes up more often with seized or impounded vehicles. If it is impossible to allege “exigent circumstances and the safety of police officers”, warrants are subsequently procured to search the car. This happens with computers too, but less often.
Sort of the distinction between being ‘detained’ but not ‘arrested’ for individuals.
Hairsplitting artificial flatulence I know, but that is what law always reduces down to, regardless of place or time.