Thursday, January 6, 2011

Searching Phones And Computers Not Warranted

In California, it was ruled that a suspect's phone could be inspected and searched without a warrant.  This is dangerous ground, as it opens up the possibility of laptops and other devices for search, and without giving police the requirement of giving cause, or following procedure associated with searching private property.

Jonathan Turley, a Constitutional law expert at George Washington University, took to his blog to raise his concerns about the ruling.
"The Court has left the Fourth Amendment in tatters and this ruling is the natural extension of that trend," he wrote. "While the Framers wanted to require warrants for searches and seizures, the Court now allows the vast majority of searches and seizures to occur without warrants. As a result, the California Supreme Court would allow police to open cell phone files — the modern equivalent of letter and personal messages.”
Enough is enough.  We need people in office who will protect our civil liberties.  Frankly, I'm not as afraid of terrorists as I am the government and the people under its protection. The war on terror is starting to look more and more like an excuse to circumvent those pesky protections our forefathers put into place.  I never in a million years thought a few years would crumble centuries of due process and accountability.

7 comments:

  1. "I never in a million years thought a few years would crumble centuries of due process and accountability."

    You left out the key phrase "under Obama" from that. We were told if we didn't elect Obama, John McCain would have made the "Bush surveillance regime" permanent.

    How's that hope and change working out for you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Infinitely better, thanks for asking, brave anonymous poo-flinger.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is the opinion.

    I think the CA court got it right. The 4th Amendment guarantees that people are protected from unreasonable searches. This means warrants aren't always required.

    In the "Factual Background" part of the ruling, defendant Diaz had his cellphone on him when he was arrested, and it went off before he was whisked off to jail by the police. During that time, he got a text message that a policeman happened to see and believed had to do with a drug deal Diaz was trying hook up. Some time after Diaz was being processed, about 90 minutes, police took a closer look at the phone, which is the crux of the argument.

    What the court said is the phone on Diaz's person at the time of the arrest, and the time the police waited before reviewing the info on the phone, doesn't conflict with existing precedent. Had the phone not been with Diaz at the time of his arrest, then a warrant would have been required for a search to proceed.

    This seems like much ado about nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This Bon chick seems nearly as stupid and reactionary (and factually challenged) as Zandar is.

    Something tells me Bon The Geek is just an assumed name for our lovable dipshit blogmaster.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wouldn't be the first time Zandar got busted sock-puppeting his own blog either.

    Does Bon really exist?

    And gee Zandar where's your good friend Arcadian these days?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, because a bunch of anonymous twats are experts on sockpuppeting.

    Seriously, we've been here before, it's just as stupid then as it was now. But then, guess some things never change.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, where's vaguely threatening dude nowadays. We can't have the troll reunion with out him.

    ReplyDelete