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.)
Re:Easy Fix. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
But in most jurisdictions, if they had taken his car while making the arrest, they would have had to get a search warrant before they started digging around in the car.
It seems only proper that they get a warrant for the phone. If it makes as much sense as you seem to imply, they would have no problem getting the warrant.
Unless they suspect there evidence in the car, they don't automatically have a valid reason to search it. Even if they believe there may be a trunk full of drugs, most police agencies will get the warrant just to be sure it stands up in court, because "suspecting there is evidence" has been found to be just too big of a loop-hole and has been so often abused that it is routinely thrown out. In fact in some jurisdictions, if they seize the car/phone, all emergency situations cease at that point and there is no longer exigent circumstance to search for drugs. Bombs, maybe, but drugs or cell phone data, not so much.
See: http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you [aclu.org]
As for "having him on Drug sales", I fail to see why that makes a difference. They already had is phone too. He wasn't going to be given a chance to wipe it.
Re:It's just so sad that the practice (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems like it will continue - despite any ruling. Look at the overall indicators and trend, not just one specific ruling or data point.
But if it happens, a lawyer can now point to this ruling, which states that searching the contents of a mobile phone without warrant during an arrest is almost always illegal, and that any evidence coming from the phone is inadmissable. Which means that evidence that the police _might_ have found in another way is now inadmissable.