• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Unanimous SCOTUS Strikes Warrantless Cellpohne Searches

Lensman said:
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?
Click to expand...

Can they open a sealed envelope and read the contents?

Steve S
 
CORed said:
One of the odd anomalies of U.S. law is that police officers are required to inform you of your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination before they question you,
Click to expand...

Close enough for TV, but not quite accurate (in a way that renders the rest of the quote moot). They are required to inform you of your 'Miranda Rights' (including the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination) when they arrest you. However, if they are simply questioning you, without an arrest, then it is not required. Anything you volunteer prior to arrest is admissible, verbally or in a physical search.
 
Lensman said:
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?

If the answers to the above questions are no, what's the difference between a diary/address book & a mobile phone?
Click to expand...

Pockets and handbags can hold weapons and the safety of the officer trumps the 4th amendment. The officer can't flip through your address book because the amendment specifically mentions papers (he may flip through it anyway but he can't use it against you if he finds something incriminating without a warrant first). The issue here was that because a cell phone isn't made of paper and isn't a weapon, there was no guidance on if it should be considered papers or not so the police were "Flipping" through it sans warrant and use any incriminating evidence found against you. This ruling clears that up, it's now considered an effect, which is mentioned in the amendment, and as such you need a warrant.
 
uke2se said:
I thought it was police and prosecutors who were benchslapped by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

This was argued in front of the SCOTUS by the Federal Government because it was a confluence of a California case and a Federal case so the Federal case took precedence. That's why it is considered that it was the administration who got benchslapped, they were the leading force behind arguing the case in front SCOTUS. Obama could have dropped it and left it in California's hands.

But you are right in that it affects police and prosecutors as well.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Or for practical purposes, no restriction on just lying and saying you consented.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about this. There have been several occasions upon which the police have asked to search my car, and I've denied them the opportunity. They've sometimes pressured me a bit, and it usually leads to "extra" harassment or screening of some kind, so that's annoying. But in the end, they've always had no choice but to eventually allow me to go about my business with a citation for whatever it was they initially stopped me for.

At the time, I wondered what, besides their own "goodness" was keeping them from doing so anyways and just saying that I'd given permission. I guess it just wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were totally sadistic, but in cases where they really have strong reason (but not enough to get a warrant) to believe that the individual is carrying something illegal in their vehicle, what is stopping them from simply saying that the individual consented, and then lied about consenting after the contraband was found?
 
Last edited:
The Norseman said:
Wrong...
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd go that far.

The decision is based on a search incident to arrest. Police certainly have the power to search without warrant or consent any person being taken in to custody for officer safety, to control contraband in the detention facility and to inventory items removed from the arrestee's possession. Likewise, the police have the power to search any vehicle being impounded for public safety and to inventory items.

Police also get a Terry search -- a cursory search incident to a reasonable suspicion of a crime -- for weapons for officer safety and evidence that could be destroyed that's in the immediate control of a person. Cursory is kind of dependent on circumstance. If I'm calm and compliant, they probably get a quick pat down or an open your man-purse. If I got my arms half-way down the rear of my pants, they probably get to take some special interest in what's in between my butt cheeks.

I do agree that it takes some pretty extraordinary exigent circumstances for the 4th Amendment to fly out the window. That's the realm of abducted children and backpack bombers.

The court here just acknowledges that the contents of a smart phone is a specially-protected compartment that by virtue of newly-adopted custom people store the most private -- and thus most protected -- information. It differs in that regard to the 8-ball of meth I shoved in my Marlboro pack when I saw the blues light up behind me.
 
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly said:
At the time, I wondered what, besides their own "goodness" was keeping them from doing so anyways and just saying that I'd given permission. I guess it just wouldn't be worth it for them unless they were totally sadistic, but in cases where they really have strong reason (but not enough to get a warrant) to believe that the individual is carrying something illegal in their vehicle, what is stopping them from simply saying that the individual consented, and then lied about consenting after the contraband was found?
Click to expand...


The practical answer is the courts, which decide as a issue of fact (or law) if consent was given for a search. Nothing looks more ridiculous than the libertarian exercise where the 20-something starts every sentence with, I do not consent to a search. It's also probably the best legal advice you could get.

I don't want to short-shrift an individual sense of public duty here. I believe the majority of police officers do understand that outright lying does nothing to serve the cause of justice -- even against a bad actor. I also accept that a)the sentiment is not universal and -- more importantly b)there are grey areas where a little shortcut isn't seen as an outright fabrication. Think of it as SEC officiating. The tie goes to the police. (Yes, people go to prison and it's no joking matter.)

Departments are more-often setting policies to preserve the record with the understanding that the door swings both ways. You may get my bag of weed into evidence behind a little uncertainty and a little white lie, but you may also get the serial rapist's collection of trophies thrown out on the same set of circumstances. Dash cams and audio recorders are great tools to objectively protect everyone in the system. The technology isn't prohibitively expensive anymore so everyone should be speaking out if your jurisdiction doesn't have them yet.

Brady and its progeny also make the stakes fairly high for an officer to get caught out-of-bounds, though I think it should go much farther. I think it should be unquestioned and fundamental that any record of misconduct be exculpatory. I'd also like the court to find a due process right to mandatory recording of all consents to search. I'd throw in a due process right to open file discovery in any criminal case, just to weed out the grey areas.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
If I am so '"Laughably wrong" then I'm sure that you can cite legal precedent for that statement.
Click to expand...
I most certainly can.

However, you said it and it's up to you to back it up. You said, "the safety of the officer trumps the 4th amendment." Go ahead and cite legal precedent that supports your statement.
 
One news report I heard about this decision mentioned that the police can still, despite the ruling, examine your cell phone to determine if it is a weapon.

Is there really an app for that, though?
 
Cylinder said:
I don't know if I'd go that far.
Click to expand...
I would.

A person's civil rights are some of the most important things that citizens should know and when vague and ill-formed statements like the ones I quoted go unchallenged, then others who are not well-informed read it and believe it to be factual.

It's tough enough when cops can de facto lie with impunity and often manipulate and intimidate to get you to give up your rights.

As to the OP, I'm glad of the SC ruling, but I'm cynically thinking that judges will rubber-stamp these warrants similar to many judges rubber-stamping no-knock warrants.
 
The Norseman said:
I most certainly can.

However, you said it and it's up to you to back it up. You said, "the safety of the officer trumps the 4th amendment." Go ahead and cite legal precedent that supports your statement.
Click to expand...

OK, Terry v. Ohio and Michigan v. Long.

Your turn.
 
Look, I'm as pro-individual rights as you can get, and I've no delusions about cops being paragons of virtue (cops have openly stated that they were gunning for my family, and on several occasions have pulled guns on my father in violation of state law); however, you're going too far, The Norseman. The Fourh Ammendment ITSELF justifies searches for the protection of the officer.

Fourth Amendment said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
The highlighted text is the important bit. Searching a suspect for weapons to ensure the safety of the officer, or searching someone being brought into custody for the purpose of inventorying items (ie, to keep the police honest when they return it to you), are both searches any rational person would state are reasonable. There is, at least from the standpoint of ethical philosophy and to the best of my understanding, no violation of the principle governing the Fourth Amendment in searching someone to ensure officer safety.

Cylinder said:
I think it should be unquestioned and fundamental that any record of misconduct be exculpatory.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I'm fully behind that. I'm definitely simpathetic to this stance; however, I'm also well aware of how wide the net "misconduct" is. I mean, technically not turning your time sheet in by close of business is classified as misconduct in some cases (there are federal laws governing timesheets). So are minor clerical errors--the kind that are inevitable when you have overworked and understaffed departments doing dangerous jobs that encourage even more dangerous situations (ie, the police). Some slack needs to be cut for such errors. Certainly certain TYPES of misconduct should be exculpatory, but I wouldn't say all should be. Too many lawyers involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom