• 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.

2011 in Review, Search Incident to Arrest, not now so narrow exception to Fourth Amen

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/year-smartphone
Hanni Fakhoury said:
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures applies to cell phones, and EFF has long advocated for the police to come back with a warrant before searching a cell phone. But in January 2011, the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Diaz (PDF), that the police were authorized to search any person's cell phone, without a warrant, after they had been arrested under the narrow "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment, that permits a brief search in the area immediately around a person for the purposes of officer safety and protection of evidence from immediate destruction.

We predicted Diaz would create routine privacy violations, and worried that officers could use a pretextual arrest to casually browse the data on a person's cell phone for any reason, even if that person is never charged with a crime. We weren't the only ones worried. In April, California Senator Mark Leno introduced a bill intending to revserse Diaz and require the police to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone incident to arrest. Sponsored by the ACLU of Northern California, and supported by an EFF Action Alert, the bill passed through both houses of the California legislature before being vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. As Governor Brown explained it (PDF), "Courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizure protections." Yet, courts across the country have been struggling to deal with this issue. The Ohio Supreme Court, interpreting the same "constitutional search-and-seizure" protections as the California Supreme Court in Diaz, reached the opposite conclusion, prohibiting warrantless cell phone searches. Faced with this conflict of opinion, the United States Supreme Court, a week before Governor Brown's veto message, declined to review the Diaz opinion.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
SCOTUS refusing to allow this issue at the Bench speaks to their view that this is a state issue, not a Federal issue. Where do we draw the line in Federal v. State issues? You either are for an efficient Federal Government, or an efficient state government. The Constitution is pro-efficient Federal Government, at the expense of the states. So, the Federal Government, as it tickles their fancy, will decide to Bench the case, or not.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
SCOTUS refusing to allow this issue at the Bench speaks to their view that this is a state issue, not a Federal issue. Where do we draw the line in Federal v. State issues? You either are for an efficient Federal Government, or an efficient state government. The Constitution is pro-efficient Federal Government, at the expense of the states. So, the Federal Government, as it tickles their fancy, will decide to Bench the case, or not.

SCOTUS only takes cases that 4 justices want to hear. If less than 4 want to hear it, it doesn't get bench time. It has nothing to do with them thinking it is a States rights issue or not. Study at least a little bit before you make a comment you know little or nothing about, please.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
SCOTUS refusing to allow this issue at the Bench speaks to their view that this is a state issue, not a Federal issue. Where do we draw the line in Federal v. State issues? You either are for an efficient Federal Government, or an efficient state government. The Constitution is pro-efficient Federal Government, at the expense of the states. So, the Federal Government, as it tickles their fancy, will decide to Bench the case, or not.

The Constitution is "pro-efficient" fed-gov at the expense of the states? Stick too Rustoleum my dear, the cheap $#!t is doing too much damage. The Constitution limits federal power, there's nothing in there that addresses "efficiency", or the feds exersizing anything at the expense of the state.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
SCOTUS only takes cases that 4 justices want to hear. If less than 4 want to hear it, it doesn't get bench time. It has nothing to do with them thinking it is a States rights issue or not. Study at least a little bit before you make a comment you know little or nothing about, please.


I see. So SCOTUS is not making a statement when they do not Bench an issue. :rolleyes:
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
I'm not a techno-geek, but I just looked at my phone and it has the capability of being password protected. It would seem to me that it would then take a search warrant to force you to give up the password. Or is there some way of getting around the password that I am not aware of?

It also seems to me, and I'm not a lawyer either, that if there is a way to get around the password and the police use it without a warrant, any evidence so obtained would be inadmissible in court.

Some of you techs and lawyers please tell me if I am wrong.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
I'm not a techno-geek, but I just looked at my phone and it has the capability of being password protected. It would seem to me that it would then take a search warrant to force you to give up the password. Or is there some way of getting around the password that I am not aware of?

It also seems to me, and I'm not a lawyer either, that if there is a way to get around the password and the police use it without a warrant, any evidence so obtained would be inadmissible in court.

Some of you techs and lawyers please tell me if I am wrong.

Make like Hillary during Whitewater scandal hearings when they ask you for the password. "I'm sorry, I don't remember". Of course they'll know you're full of it but no one can prove that you do remember.
I also think someone on another thread posted something about incrypting your phone for that purpose. Just press a couple of keys and bingo, Phone needs password to be turn on again.
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
SCOTUS refusing to allow this issue at the Bench speaks to their view that this is a state issue, not a Federal issue. Where do we draw the line in Federal v. State issues? You either are for an efficient Federal Government, or an efficient state government. The Constitution is pro-efficient Federal Government, at the expense of the states. So, the Federal Government, as it tickles their fancy, will decide to Bench the case, or not.


Actually, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is exactly the opposite. They are clearly worded to place severe and strict LIMITS on Federal authority, and to give almost ALL powers and authority to the States and to individuals, while clearly delineating that the Federal Government has an extremely limited scope of authority.

How anyone can see the Constitution and BoR as setting up wide-ranging Federal authority and restricting the States is beyond me.

The Feds have gained most of their "authority" through fraud, activist courts setting Case Precedent, and by passing illegal, unconstitutional Codes.

The "Interstate Commerce Clause" has been used by the Fed to snatch authority from the States and rights from individuals on topics ranging from duck hunting to the selling of raw milk, and is, in almost every case, a gross over-reach of authority....
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Make like Hillary during Whitewater scandal hearings when they ask you for the password. "I'm sorry, I don't remember". Of course they'll know you're full of it but no one can prove that you do remember.


I bet they'd remember if they were waterboarded...
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Actually, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is exactly the opposite. They are clearly worded to place severe and strict LIMITS on Federal authority, and to give almost ALL powers and authority to the States and to individuals, while clearly delineating that the Federal Government has an extremely limited scope of authority.

How anyone can see the Constitution and BoR as setting up wide-ranging Federal authority and restricting the States is beyond me.

The Feds have gained most of their "authority" through fraud, activist courts setting Case Precedent, and by passing illegal, unconstitutional Codes.

The "Interstate Commerce Clause" has been used by the Fed to snatch authority from the States and rights from individuals on topics ranging from duck hunting to the selling of raw milk, and is, in almost every case, a gross over-reach of authority....

Then you will have no issue with providing for us all where it actually states that in the Constitution.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
The United States Constitution is a grant of limited power to the government, with certain explicit prohibitions. The government has arrogated power beyond its grant.

We soup-frogs were born in the scalding water of security, when the heat is turned up to suffocating tyranny some commend the reasonableness of the tyrant not boiling us to death.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The United States Constitution is a grant of limited power to the government, with certain explicit prohibitions. The government has arrogated power beyond its grant.

We soup-frogs were born in the scalding water of security, when the heat is turned up to suffocating tyranny some commend the reasonableness of the tyrant not boiling us to death.

Did I miss something - is your response a specific reference to the terminology of the Constitution?

Or are you merely offering your opinion that the Constitution grants limited power to the Government? Sometime I think that individuals on here mistaken the Articles of Confederation with the United States Constitution. I sure hope that individuals are aware that the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution ARE NOT the same documents.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I'm not a techno-geek, but I just looked at my phone and it has the capability of being password protected. It would seem to me that it would then take a search warrant to force you to give up the password. Or is there some way of getting around the password that I am not aware of?

It also seems to me, and I'm not a lawyer either, that if there is a way to get around the password and the police use it without a warrant, any evidence so obtained would be inadmissible in court.

Some of you techs and lawyers please tell me if I am wrong.

It is flagrantly unconstitutional, but technically trivial, to see everything on your phone no matter how you protect it.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp
 
Top