• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I can hear our RIGHTS as they disapper!!

IYAOYAS

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Escondido, CA
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.
 

Army

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
289
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
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.
 

CenTex

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
276
Location
,,
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?
 

Army

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
289
Location
San Luis Obispo, California, USA
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.
 
Top