Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: I can hear our RIGHTS as they disapper!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    50

    I can hear our RIGHTS as they disapper!!

    SAN FRANCISCO The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that police do not need a warrant to search a cell phone carried by someone under arrest.

    The justices determined a Ventura County deputy had the right to conduct a warrantless search of the text messages of a man he had arrested on suspicion of participating in a drug deal.

    The state court ruled 5-2 that U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirms that police can search items found on defendants when they are arrested.

    However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that in 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston ruled that police could not search the cell phones of drug defendants without a warrant.

    The Ohio Supreme Court also found in 2009 that police did not have that right.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    Vandals chop down famous Nevada 'shoe tree' Man charged in NY hotel death: I left her sleeping undercover cruiseline boss earns angel wings the hard way major u.s. airports consider ditching tsa California Deputy Attorney General Victoria Wilson, who represented the prosecution in the case decided Monday, told the newspaper the split opinions in California and Ohio could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the cell phone issue.

    The California Supreme Court decided the loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include personal property.

    Authorities can not only seize items but also can open and examine what they find, the ruling said.

    The case stems from the arrest of defendant Gregory Diaz in 2007. A detective took the phone from Diaz's pocket when he was arrested.

    Ninety minutes later, a deputy searched its text messages without obtaining a warrant and found evidence linking Diaz to the drug deal. Diaz pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation but appealed the search.

    The two dissenting justices said U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s on the right to search an arrestee's property should not extend to modern technological devices.

    In one of those decisions, the high court found that police were within their rights when they searched inside a crumpled cigarette pack and found heroin capsules.
    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    As long as the person has been arrested on an actual charge, I have no problem with this.

    Being detained, however, does NOT allow a warrantless search since no crime has been commited.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Army View Post
    As long as the person has been arrested on an actual charge, I have no problem with this.

    Being detained, however, does NOT allow a warrantless search since no crime has been commited.
    So if you are arrested in your front yard, do you consider a search of your home valid?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by DON`T TREAD ON ME View Post
    So if you are arrested in your front yard, do you consider a search of your home valid?
    That was not the situation given, and is wholly different.

    If I am arrested on my front lawn for a criminal activity witnessed outside my home, they would still need a warrant to search the house.

  5. #5
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Army View Post
    That was not the situation given, and is wholly different.

    If I am arrested on my front lawn for a criminal activity witnessed outside my home, they would still need a warrant to search the house.
    If you are arrested because the police believe that you have committed a crime, should that permit them to search your private messages so they can find out if you have committed another crime? What does this do with RAS? Does it not preempt it?
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    If you are arrested because the police believe that you have committed a crime, should that permit them to search your private messages so they can find out if you have committed another crime? What does this do with RAS? Does it not preempt it?
    In this situation, they didn't link him to a seperate crime, but the one he was being accused of. Finding evidence related to the crime at hand, is legal.

    Should they find evidence of any other crime, it would not be admissable since it was obtained without a warrant specifying the new crime.

    It is much the same as searching your car after you were arrested for drunk driving, and finding a bag of meth. Operating a vehicle while impaired is illegal, and the vehicle itself becomes evidence, along with anything else inside.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •