If they find the search is unlawful, what would that mean for the dickheads at US customs and their ability to grab your laptop and any other electronics as they please? I hope they expand on that, or someone sues about it.
The US Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a pair of cases to determine whether police need a warrant to search the mobile phones of people they have arrested. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution forbids "unreasonable" search and seizure, but in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that conducting a full search of an …
If they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed they could take possession of the phone and apply to the court for access and then look at the data.
What I would object to is being stopped on a stop and search and the Police Officer taking my phone and looking through it without reasonable cause and just because he can. Of course I could refuse to tell him the password but then he may claim I am obstructing him in his duty and arrest me.
While at a classic car rally in the midlands many children were taking advantage of a massive blow up slide. One parent took photos of his children coming down the slide. A few seconds later he was approached by a Police Officer and asked why he was taking pictures of children. They were of course his children. The Police officer then insisted he take possession of the camera and look through the pictures.
The person in question said no. The Police Officer then puffed out his chest and demanded to look at the pictures and said that if he was not allowed he may have to take further action.
He was quick to back down when my friend pulled out his Warrant Card identified himself and his rank and asked the Police Officer if he understood the limits of his powers. To which the Police Officer apologised said he was acting on a complaint from a member of the public that people were taking pictures of children.
It was a family day out at a classic car rally complete with fairground rides.
I'd expect the Supreme to rule that searching the phone is not legal without a court order (except possibly in certain types of cases). The items you have on your person at the time of arrest are of immediate interest as indicative of what you might have been doing at the time you were arrested, but your phone contains information about what you have been doing for possibly months and years before the arrest, and so searching the phone becomes something of a fishing expedition.
In certain cases it might be useful if the arresting officers could confiscate the phone until a search warrant is obtained, so as to prevent possibly important data from being erased or deleted.
quote: "If habeas corpus exists, you're not in a police state."
If habeas corpus exists for those arrested under suspicion of terrorism, in exactly the same form as it does for those arrested for non-terrorist offenses, then I'll completely agree.
Unfortunately I think the PATRIOT Act and similar UK legislation gives far greater terms of incarceration without charge for "terrists" than for other defendants.
Also any regime that uses torture at all on defendants is automatically a police state, at least IMO.
I think there may be two issues on the go here but (unfortunately?) practice or experience in the media seems to merge them in to one?
1 - Power to do something
2 - an apparent arrogance in the use of that power
One neat thing the US has above the UK is that it seems it is a legal matter requiring courts rather than a bunch of civil servants matter requiring a bunch of civil servants?
Perhaps we want the state to extend powers but equally want the state to be sure that those powers are not used arrogantly, for ill or for self-interest?
If so that would mean enshrining some protection and reparations for injured parties but at the back of my memory is plebgate (UK) and those discriminant beatings that seem to happen in US. Suggesting to moi that abusers if they get together will have a feast of abuse?
This post has been deleted by its author
Say the police are not allowed to search the phone of someone who is arrested, they take him into custody and then apply for a warrant from a Judge presenting all of the evidence leading to the arrest. What exactly have they lost?
I can only conclude they want the ability to arrest someone, and then look on the phone for reasons to arrest them.
They need a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed before they can make an arrest.
This is a bit of a grey area especially if you are from a minority background or you are black.
In which case here in the UK being Black gives them the presumption that you have committed a crime and in the US they can just shoot you first and ask questions later.
@ AC 13:11
Race card rejected.
Your attempted use of the race card in a debate bearing nothing to do with race is why the card is so worn out, and frankly, no longer valid. Put down your Guardian, step away from the computer, and go look in the mirror. That reflection you see, that is why society is in the mess that it is.
If my house door is open and someone goes in and takes something then there is a chance that something was taken without my permission, even if it was a policeman/woman who took it.
If my mobile device is open and someone takes information without my consent is that not a similar improper event?
Sorry Turtle but this may not work as many of us keep our data in the cloud one would only need to remove the data using a.n.other device or even simply send a wipe signal to the device under question.
On the other hand I dont expect an officer of the law to be able to access my data without a court order ,we are not after all the star turn in another NCIS program where hacking is the norm.