Florida Supreme Court Rules on Cell Phone Searches

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled this week that police cannot search through a person’s cell phone without first obtaining a search warrant. The ruling stems from a burglary case where evidence leading to conviction was obtained directly from the suspect’s confiscated cell phone.

“At this time, we cannot ignore that a significant portion of our population relies upon cell phones for email communications, text message information, scheduling, and banking,” read the majority opinion, authored by Justice Fred Lewis.

Click to expand...

Excellent.

Full opinion here, it's a fairly easy read:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2013/sc11-1130.pdf

People are working up there...good to know.

no fucking brainer? Seriously, do we need to have a court case on every object that exists? Why is this even a fucking debate?

Facebook: Today's MySpace in 5 years. Calling it.

Cyraxx said:

no fucking brainer? Seriously, do we need to have a court case on every object that exists? Why is this even a fucking debate?

Click to expand...

Frankly, yes.

The bulk of our laws predate the internet and cellphones. And were not made with our age of information sharing at all in mind.

Skripka said:

Frankly, yes.

The bulk of our laws predate the internet and cellphones. And were not made with our age of information sharing at all in mind.

Click to expand...

Hence why the cases like this happen - police mentality is that if it isnt defined in the law, it's fair game. Which is contrary to how it should be, common sense should apply that if you cant search X without a warrant, you cant search Y.

Spidey329 said:

Which is contrary to how it should be, common sense should apply that if you cant search X without a warrant, you cant search Y.

Click to expand...

That's the exact opposite of what's happening here though. The courts are saying if you arrest someone, then you can search through their pockets, but you can't search through the phone in their pocket.

Skripka said:

Frankly, yes.

The bulk of our laws predate the internet and cellphones. And were not made with our age of information sharing at all in mind.

Click to expand...

What difference does that make? Any idiot with common sense should be able to tell that a phone is a phone, communication is communication, wireless or not, a right of privacy to communication not meant for public usage, that applies to any media, applies equally to all new forms of private media, exactly the same.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I don't know how this is so complicated. Your effects are ALL AND ANY OF YOUR SHIT, PERIOD. 18th Century shit, 20th century shit, 21st century shit, 25th 1/2 Duck Fucking Dodger's Century shit.... all your EFFECTS period.

If you are a person (cop, DA, whomever) who does not understand this.... you are literally too stupid to live.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I don't know how this is so complicated. Your effects are ALL AND ANY OF YOUR SHIT, PERIOD. 18th Century shit, 20th century shit, 21st century shit, 25th 1/2 Duck Fucking Dodger's Century shit.... all your EFFECTS period.

If you are a person (cop, DA, whomever) who does not understand this.... you are literally too stupid to live.

Click to expand...

You really think that the Founding Fathers thought of effects being able to transmit messages around the globe and still wrote the 4th Amendment as is? I think this ruling is correct, and I don't deny the work and heart that the Founders put into the Constitution but they were not fortune tellers and had they known the future I think that maybe the 13th Amendment might have been on of the first 10.

Spidey329 said:

Hence why the cases like this happen - police mentality is that if it isnt defined in the law, it's fair game. Which is contrary to how it should be, common sense should apply that if you cant search X without a warrant, you cant search Y.

Click to expand...

Oh please. What isn't defined expressly by law is leveraged by (potential) defendants just as much as plaintiffs.

Look at all the FAA and OSHA law. Those binders full of laws all exist because those things didn't used to be defined, and people took the cheap way at the expense of worker's and customer's lives and safety. Look at investment banking, people are paid big bucks to figure out cons that aren't expressly covered by law. The mortgage securities debacle is a classic case of people who aren't cops pushing the limits of law-and screwing everyone and getting away with it.

BBA said:

What difference does that make? Any idiot with common sense should be able to tell that a phone is a phone, communication is communication, wireless or not, a right of privacy to communication not meant for public usage, that applies to any media, applies equally to all new forms of private media, exactly the same.

Click to expand...

Where does your "right to privacy" come into play? You're sending 1s and 0s from phones you lease from companies, over networks run by third and 4th party companies, across massive data centers you do not even know where they are (run by more companies) along with billions of other people. From a "common sense" perspective, do you have any "right to privacy" (or rather expectation of privacy) in a packed McDonalds inside a crowded international airport? Common sense ain't so common if you consider things from beyond your personal everyday street perspective.*

There is no "right to privacy" by the way. Re-read your Amendments and your Constitution, it ain't in there.*


*I am playing advocatus diaboli here, I in no way actually think that cellphones are free to spy on by any that can without consent or knowledge.

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Much like much of the constitution people like to highlight the parts they feel are most relevant.

The argument isn't that your shit can not be searched, that's silly to think there is any such law that says under no circumstances your shit may be search. It all comes down to the defining of what is considered "unreasonable". A cop searching your pockets after arresting you is not unreasonable. Searching through your cell phone records... eh that could be different which is why we have judges making these calls.

sfsuphysics said:

Much like much of the constitution people like to highlight the parts they feel are most relevant.

The argument isn't that your shit can not be searched, that's silly to think there is any such law that says under no circumstances your shit may be search. It all comes down to the defining of what is considered "unreasonable". A cop searching your pockets after arresting you is not unreasonable. Searching through your cell phone records... eh that could be different which is why we have judges making these calls.

Click to expand...

Yup.

In the case here...the suspect was already arrested when his cellphone was confiscated and then searched. Prosecution relied on a precedent where a drug dealer's cigarette pack was confiscated and then searched and found to contain heroin without a warrant, and that search was deemed legal. If that search was legal, it isn't much of a stretch to go the extra step of applying the same standard to cellphones.

Only reason for the majority opinion requiring a warrant here, is that cellphones are deemed to be data troves of too much personal info to just go on a fishing expedition on without explicit cause.

Skripka said:

Yup.

In the case here...the suspect was already arrested when his cellphone was confiscated and then searched. Prosecution relied on a precedent where a drug dealer's cigarette pack was confiscated and then searched and found to contain heroin without a warrant, and that search was deemed legal. If that search was legal, it isn't much of a stretch to go the extra step of applying the same standard to cellphones.

Only reason for the majority opinion requiring a warrant here, is that cellphones are deemed to be data troves of too much personal info to just go on a fishing expedition on without explicit cause.

Click to expand...

I agree, but if your phone is just the default swype to unlock, I think it should be fair game. You didn't care to take any steps to secure it, anyone can access it laying around anyways.