.jpg)
2:45 AM
zimbio
In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston ruled police could not search the cell phones of defendants without a warrant. In 2009, the Ohio supreme court ruled against the illegal search of cell phones as well.
California Deputy Attorney General Victoria Wilson told the media Monday that the split decisions in California and Ohio could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to personally look into the issue of police searching cell phones.
The California Supreme Court decided the loss of privacy upon arrest extends beyond the arrestee's body to include personal property. Now, authorities can not only seize items, but can also open and examine what they find.
The question remains, should police have the right to search an arrestee's property including modern technology such as cell phones and external USB drives? The ruling opens up disturbing possibilities, such as warrantless searches of e-mails, documents and contacts on smart phones, and laptop computers.
I personally do not believe police officers should have the right to search someones cell phone unless they get a warrant to do so. There is no reason for police to have access to someones personal conversations without a court ruling deciding it is necessary. This is not surprising at all considering the CIA, FBI and homeland security tap citizens cell phones on a regular basis already. It's sad to say, but many of our rights died when the Patriot act was passed. Write your local senator and tell them you disagree with the California court ruling Monday, if you don't, no one else will!
By the way, Password-protection of smart phones may be a useful tool to ward off a warrantless search.
Interesting Articles:
0 comments:
Post a Comment