Unanimous SCOTUS Strikes Warrantless Cellpohne Searches

[The Norseman]

You really don't know what a Terry search means? Read this.

Then get back to me. It's over 40 years old as far as the law goes.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...86&q=Terry+v.+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

Terry v. Ohio puts forth a two-pronged test that police must pass:

1) an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is armed AND
2) an officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that a person is an immediate danger to others (such as a crime being committed or about to be committed)

Nothing in that proves correct the claim that "the safety of the officer trumps the fourth amendment" and it needs to be quite clear what it means when cops come up to you and wish to search sans warrant. Cops can and will lie about wanting to search for "officer safety" but mere officer safety DOES NOT trigger an exception to the fourth amendment protections.

Saying "the safety of the officer trumps the fourth amendment" is a sloppy and ill-considered statement and must be corrected so that people who read this sort of thing will be properly informed.

The important thing here is that it is vital to always refuse a search of your person and effects. If, after that, cops search, then they must be able to state, potentially to a judge in court, what their reasonable articulable suspicions were -- for both prongs of the test -- at the time of the search. If they cannot, it could possibly be an illegal search. This hinges on (again) you stating that you refuse any searches.

Finally, I am not nor was I ever speaking about searches incident to arrest.