Fed. Appeals Court Says Police Need Warrant to Search Phone 69
An anonymous reader writes "In a decision that's almost certainly going to result in this issue heading up to the Supreme Court, the Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [Friday] ruled that police can't search your phone when they arrest you without a warrant. That's contrary to most courts' previous findings in these kinds of cases where judges have allowed warrantless searches through cell phones." (But in line with the recently mentioned decision in Florida, and seemingly with common sense.)
It's just so sad that the practice (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.
Those cool, adventurous science-fiction dystopias in Bladerunner and the like. Well, they aren't so cool for most people to live in. They certainly aren't cool for the people who witness the transitions - from the 70s to post 2001...
It's a long way from the top, now. And we didn't tie a rope to climbe back.
Slowing the End Run around rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, for once the court seems to have a backbone. (Only once?)
It of course makes no sense that you can have a pile of papers and "edible looking items" in your car, and those are protected, but then there's your phone over there in the corner, "yay, it's electronic so the consitution doesn't apply!"
Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
From a casual reading (by a non-lawyer) of the constitution, this makes perfect sense.
This thing about "we can go through all your possessions if we somehow get our hands on it" is ludicrous, and the "if we can pick the lock or break it open we can rummage around inside" thing is stupider still. If I lock my data but the police manage to break the encryption method they can rummage around in the data? Does this work for the locks on my house? The dial on my safe?
The simple search looking for weapons thing "to protect the officer" was an exception, but they've taken it beyond extreme rights violations [npr.org].
If you see someone committing a crime, arrest them. If you can't convict them without the data on their cell phone, you shouldn't have arrested them in the first place.
Oh, and if someone parrots "how can we do our jobs if we don't have the tools" nonsense, remind them that we're currently enjoying the lowest crime rate in several decades.
Re:Easy Fix. (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the briefing...
They already had him on doing a drug sale, and the cell phone was searched after he was read his rights and his items were confiscated for booking.
It is kinda a grey area, but I'm happy this case is not about searching someone BEFORE any crime was committed & booked... rather, it was after he was arrested. There was also no password/encryption in use.
This does bring up a mixed feeling.... But i think the judge made the right call -- There was no immediate danger, or issue, that could justify bypassing the individuals rights. He was already in custody and being charged for a crime... His phone was safely in police custody and being processed to store. A judge should have reviewed the information and issued a warrant to search the phone.
If the crime was kidnapping, and the phone might have information on where to go to save someone's life.. I'd agree in a heartbeat that his phone should be searched immediately.. But this guy was being processed to go behind bars and nothing in the phone could have reasonably been useful to solve any immediate crises.
It makes Sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep well done America, you've partisaned the English back into power, whether republican or democrat.
This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Courts are seeing that the cell phone contains far more private info than would normally be found in someones pockets. On the surface a cell phone would be open season without a pin code, but if you delve deeper it's more like you're carrying your filing cabinet with you at all times and should be treated as such.
Re:Easy Fix. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real enemy is the war on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
All these exemptions to the constitution were instituted as exceptions to aid the war on drugs. The real enemy is the war on drugs and prohibition 2.0 should be abolished.
Re:It makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
That might be the most worrying thing, it actually makes sense! Sure to be overturned on appeal!
Have a look who made that ruling. Then come back and tell us who would overturn this.
Re:Doesn't matter anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Records are one thing, (and the Justice Department had a warrant), but your secret stuff in your phone is quite another.
You expect your phone records to be less protected, because you entrust them to a phone company.
Re:Easy Fix. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is so that under what the police deem extreme circumstances, they can perform a search without a warrant. Kidnapping is a good example. They're taking their chances, as where evidence would be valid if obtained with a warrant, it will not be in most cases. The other solution is to have on-call judges that can give a warrant over the phone. Both of these are open to abuse, but the former allows a bit more time for consideration of the circumstances.
Re:Easy Fix. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that is the trend. Courts are fighting back against creeping totalitarianism.
And obtaining a warrant is not that big of a deal.