New Law Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A new law in California has banned warrantless cell phone searches (again). :eek: Thanks to TheWeazmeister for the link.

If you get arrested in California for any reason, the photos, e-mails and other personal data on your cell phone are now a bit safer from prying police eyes. A new law now requires law-enforcement officers in that state to obtain a warrant before searching the cell phone of a person placed under arrest.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
good.. they should do this everywhere!! peoples lives are on cell phones now a days
 
Duh! Wouldn't this kind of thing be the express definition of "unlawful search and seizure?"
 
Starting with the Bush administration, the constitution has become more of a 'recommendation' than a document to be adhered to.
 
Sad that it took this law to correct a terrible ruling, but at least it was done quickly.
 
In California no less. First sane legislature to come from that state in a few years!
 
PynkFloydd said:
...unless they invoke The Patriot Act which trumps everything.
Click to expand...

Has to be valid & constitutional otherwise all the shit against you that were invoked under it is unconstitutional and will get thrown out. The Patriot Act has very limited authority and law enforcement have no right to use it outside the purview of the act. If an officer comes up to you and say "The Patriot Act says this (insert bullshit)" you're in your right to tell him to fuck off and own his ass in court should he arrest you for something trivial under that.
 
rhouck said:
Sad that it took this law to correct a terrible ruling, but at least it was done quickly.
Click to expand...

Laws are normally made in response to something people find absurd or needs to remedy. Like the anti-bestiality law in Washington State, it wasn't illegal in the entire state for more than a hundred years until that dude died.
 
Kaitian said:
Like the anti-bestiality law in Washington State, it wasn't illegal in the entire state for more than a hundred years until that dude died.
Click to expand...

Wait...what? Don't mean to threadjack but WTF!?!
 
Kaitian said:
Has to be valid & constitutional otherwise all the shit against you that were invoked under it is unconstitutional and will get thrown out. The Patriot Act has very limited authority and law enforcement have no right to use it outside the purview of the act. If an officer comes up to you and say "The Patriot Act says this (insert bullshit)" you're in your right to tell him to fuck off and own his ass in court should he arrest you for something trivial under that.
Click to expand...

...unless you're Muslim. ;) I keeeeed, I keeeeed!

sfsuphysics said:
Or you're crossing a border into the US, in which case all bets about searches and seizures are off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what was that? The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement that's proposing it's ok to molest all of our personal property?
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Wait...what? Don't mean to threadjack but WTF!?!
Click to expand...

I was still in Seattle when this came out. Some farm was being used as an animal brothel and a guy died from getting F'ed in the ass by a horse :eek:. The bestiality was big deal enough but the fact that it was the guy getting done by a horse (and not the other way around) made it even bigger.
 
Teenk9 said:
I was still in Seattle when this came out. Some farm was being used as an animal brothel and a guy died from getting F'ed in the ass by a horse :eek:. The bestiality was big deal enough but the fact that it was the guy getting done by a horse (and not the other way around) made it even bigger.
Click to expand...

The guy that recorded it got in trouble recently in another state for guess what. Animal fucking.
 
When Steve Irwin died, there was a video of his death going around. Except halfway through the vid it'd switch to horse porn, lol.
 
Please, please can this thread get back on track. I hope they make this a federal law.
 
Advil said:
Duh! Wouldn't this kind of thing be the express definition of "unlawful search and seizure?"
Click to expand...

rmdashrrootsplat said:
You'd think this would be covered by the 4th Amendment...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, and I'm torn on this law, but only because it's specifically for those being placed under arrest. While I would support the idea that police/customers/whoever shouldn't be allowed to randomly search your phone just because you got pulled over or drove into a customs checkpoint, but if your being arrested for a crime I am not sure how this would be any different then searching anything else that's on you when your arrested.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
I'm not sure, and I'm torn on this law, but only because it's specifically for those being placed under arrest. While I would support the idea that police/customers/whoever shouldn't be allowed to randomly search your phone just because you got pulled over or drove into a customs checkpoint, but if your being arrested for a crime I am not sure how this would be any different then searching anything else that's on you when your arrested.
Click to expand...

Agree with you completely. But like I stated earlier Police in Michigan were "confiscating" your phone data on routine traffic stops. From what I understand of the law, it's supposed to protect against the later not legal seizure during arrest.
 
Arcygenical said:
In California no less. First sane legislature to come from that state in a few years!
Click to expand...

we have more sane laws than any state in the country. especially when you consider we account for 13% of the country's total gdp. more than any other state.

now everyone should adopt our punishment for DUI to keep the roads safer.

1st offense

Jail: From 96 Hours to 6 Months
Fine: From $1,000 to $1,600
License Suspension: 6 Months
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
May Be Ordered to Install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)
California SR22 Insurance Required for Restricted License

2nd offense

Jail: 90 Days to 1 Year
Fine - From $1,000 to $1,900
License Suspension: 2 Years
May Apply for Restricted Driver License (IID Required)
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
California SR22 Certificate Required for Restricted License
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Agree with you completely. But like I stated earlier Police in Michigan were "confiscating" your phone data on routine traffic stops. From what I understand of the law, it's supposed to protect against the later not legal seizure during arrest.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw something about that a couple months ago, I thought it was a story here on [H] but maybe it was a different site, and I was amazed that not only someone thought it should be allowed but then that it was actually being done as well.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
I'm not sure, and I'm torn on this law, but only because it's specifically for those being placed under arrest. While I would support the idea that police/customers/whoever shouldn't be allowed to randomly search your phone just because you got pulled over or drove into a customs checkpoint, but if your being arrested for a crime I am not sure how this would be any different then searching anything else that's on you when your arrested.
Click to expand...

If you're arrested, police still need a warrant to search your house.
 
christianw said:
we have more sane laws than any state in the country. especially when you consider we account for 13% of the country's total gdp. more than any other state.

now everyone should adopt our punishment for DUI to keep the roads safer.

1st offense

Jail: From 96 Hours to 6 Months
Fine: From $1,000 to $1,600
License Suspension: 6 Months
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
May Be Ordered to Install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)
California SR22 Insurance Required for Restricted License

2nd offense

Jail: 90 Days to 1 Year
Fine - From $1,000 to $1,900
License Suspension: 2 Years
May Apply for Restricted Driver License (IID Required)
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
California SR22 Certificate Required for Restricted License
Click to expand...
You forgot to include the clause about actors. Luckily there aren't many of those in California.
 
christianw said:
we have more sane laws than any state in the country. especially when you consider we account for 13% of the country's total gdp. more than any other state.

now everyone should adopt our punishment for DUI to keep the roads safer.

1st offense

Jail: From 96 Hours to 6 Months
Fine: From $1,000 to $1,600
License Suspension: 6 Months
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
May Be Ordered to Install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)
California SR22 Insurance Required for Restricted License

2nd offense

Jail: 90 Days to 1 Year
Fine - From $1,000 to $1,900
License Suspension: 2 Years
May Apply for Restricted Driver License (IID Required)
Must Complete a Driving Under the Influence Program
California SR22 Certificate Required for Restricted License
Click to expand...


Of course this is one of the reasons we have so many people driving WITHOUT a license, and of course no insurance.
 
sfsuphysics said:
If you're arrested, police still need a warrant to search your house.
Click to expand...

True, but last I checked most people don't carry their house around in their pocket.

Note that I said "anything else that's on you when your arrested" because I was talking about your pockets, wallet, purse, etc...
 
tubular said:
Hope this becomes a federal law too
Click to expand...

Read a very interesting article that suggested that issues such as the death penalty, privacy concerns, etc all need to go the way of state laws, as it is easier to get it passed with less opposition. I think if you find legislation like this to be a benefit, you write your congresswo/man, Senator, and Governor, and you keep doing it, until they get the clue.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
True, but last I checked most people don't carry their house around in their pocket.

Note that I said "anything else that's on you when your arrested" because I was talking about your pockets, wallet, purse, etc...
Click to expand...

Nor do you normally carry around sensitive business information, complete financial records and/or access to huge amounts of personal and social data, private pictures and correspondence with other parties etc.

The information on a phone is much different from a pair of keys, a ballpoint pen and a rock of crack.
 
Kaitian said:
The Patriot Act has very limited authority and law enforcement have no right to use it outside the purview of the act. If an officer comes up to you and say "The Patriot Act says this (insert bullshit)" you're in your right to tell him to fuck off and own his ass in court should he arrest you for something trivial under that.
Click to expand...

I used to also think this, but I implore you to look up some of this stuff. Look at what its actually used for. It is not always used against "Jihadest" as we are led to believe. It is often used against normal people right here in Amercia because they are classified as domestic terrorists. Anyone who causes any kind of disturbance can be called a terrorist. It is that vague.

Remember the wire tap fiasco from several years ago? Remember Guantonimo Bay people being labled enemy combatants and being held in prison perpetually? Remember Obama signing an executive order this year stating that even if an enemy combatant is found not guilty of the crimes accused of him he can still be incarcerated indefinently?

Usually I would provide links for each of these allegations I am making, but the main stream media does not overly cover this stuff, so most of the news site talking about it are "alternative news" sites and I don't know how much you trust that. However here is one from the Huffington Post talking about how the PATRIOT Act was used in domestic criminal investigations. This is based off a hearing where the Department Of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General David Kris openly admites in has been used by and large in domestic criminal cases. Since you may not trust Huffington Post here is a direct video of the hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXMW2FMC7A

Let me paraphrase the conversation between Wisconssin Senator Russ Feingold and Asst. Attorney General David Kris

Feingold: The PATRIOT Act provided statutory authority for the government to obtain special sneak & peak criminal search warrants that allows agents to break in Americans homes and conduct secret searches without telling them for weeks, months, or longer. It is true isn't it that these searches were also used in run of the mill criminal cases and do not require any connection to terrorism?

Kris: Thats true.

Feingold: In 2008 a report shows that sneak & peak search warrants were requested 763 times but only 3 were in terrorism cases. The vast majority were for drug cases. Is that your understanding of that report?

Kris: That is my understanding. These sneak & peak on the criminal side are not meant for intelligence they are meant for criminal cases.

Feingold: Let me tell you why this concerns me. Because that's not how this was sold to the American people. Its quite extraoridinary to grant government agents the statutory authority to secretly break into Americans homes in criminal cases and I think some Americans might be concerned its been used hundreds of times in a single year in non-terrorism cases.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top