United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches
Source:
wired
URL Source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/warrantless-phone-searches/
Published: Oct 11, 2011
Author: David Kravets
Post Date: 2011-10-11 00:07:41 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 336
Comments: 8
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest. The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person’s mobile phone — which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons’ e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled. Police across the country are given wide latitude to search persons incident to an arrest based on the premise of officer safety. Now the nation’s states are beginning to grapple with the warrantless searches of mobile phones done at the time of an arrest. Brown’s veto message abdicated responsibility for protecting the rights of Californians and ignored calls from civil liberties groups and this publication to sign the bill — saying only that the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about. He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message, he also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not. Instead, he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week. “The courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizure protections,” the governor wrote. Because of that January ruling from the state’s high court, the California Legislature passed legislation to undo it — meaning Brown is taking the side of the Supreme Court’s seven justices instead of the state Legislature. The Assembly approved the bill 70-0 and the state Senate, 32-4. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone interview. Under California statehouse rules, neither Leno nor any other lawmaker may introduce the legislation for at least a year. Orin Kerr, one of the nation’s leading Fourth Amendment experts, said Brown should have backed the state’s Legislature. “I think Governor Brown has it exactly backwards. It is very difficult for courts to decide Fourth Amendment cases involving developing technologies like cellphones,” he said. In 2007, there were 332,000 felony arrests in California alone — a third of which did not result in conviction. Brown’s veto also shores up support with police unions and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a police union that opposed the legislation and recently donated $38,900 to Brown’s campaign coffers. “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation and protect the citizens of California,” the association said in a message. That support would be key if Brown decides to seek a second term. In the last year alone, at least seven police unions donated more than $12,900 each to Brown. Those unions, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, had given Brown more than $160,000 in combined contributions. Photo: DonkeyHotey/Flickr
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#2. To: All (#0)
In Ohio it is illegal for them to search your cell phone. I think the Ohio Supreme court decided that.
Warrantless Search of Cell Phone Data Barred Unless Necessary for Officer’s Safety or to Preserve Evidence You are missing the warrant part of this story. What you were trying to say is Ohio does not allow any search of cell phones at all, but they allow searches of a phone with a warrant or if not doing so would jeopardize officer safety or is necessary to preserve evidence. The legal ruling is in the link above.
Mike. How is not illegally searching a cellphone going to be a danger to a police officer? That is laughable just like fried brain moon beam.
I just quoted the decision, Stone. Ask the court in your state what they mean about how something like this could endanger a police officer.
No need to ask them. I know it can't and it is illegal for them to look at your cell phone. Without a warrant.
Except for the exceptions in the court ruling.
There are no replies to Comment # 7. End Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“The courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizure protections,” the governor wrote.
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
sk the court in your state what they mean about how something like this could endanger a police officer.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
Replies to Comment # 7.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]