[Abnorttrano]

Land of the free.

[Karlmarks]

What a ridiculous article title. The cell phone was searched AFTER the guy was arrested. It wasn't as if they tapped into his cell phone before an arrest was done.

Why does that matter?

If you arrest someone under suspicion for something, can you take their laptop and open it up and look around?

Do you no longer need a warrant for anything once you arrest someone for anything? That sounds ridiculous.

[vipBrooriErok]

If the man had been carrying a hand written ledger when arrested, would they have needed a warrant to look at it? If not, I see no difference between that and a cell phone. As Imran already stated, it wasn't searched until after the arrest.

[BartRonalds]

To me that's the same as a hand written ledger. I don't know if a warrant is needed but I suspect not, since it would be considered part of the arrest. But I am not a legal expert.

[brorialsibers]

Oh no, that doesn't require a warrant anymore. At least, I think I read an article somewhere about how you don't need a warrant to snoop through phones in California or something.

Get with the times.

[IodinkBoilk]

It's for your own safety.

[Singukil]

Well if you'd read the thread about marijuana legalization, you'd know that weed is radioactive.

[krek-sikUp]

Americans. For shame.

[kvitacencia]

He should've set up password protection on his phone.

[BipiewExifese]

Why doesn't Asher ever complain about public surveillance in London?

[Usesdiums]

Being arrested doesn't cause you rights to end.

[gogFloark]

Being arrested doesn't cause you rights to end.

No, it doesn't, but restricting the search until after people are arrested (WHICH REQUIRES A WARRANT) means that they can't just harass people for being political enemies.

EDIT: Also, I suspect the choice was either discard the case and let the criminal go free or allow something that at worst only technically infringed his rights.

[brilkyPlayday]

No, it doesn't, but restricting the search until after people are arrested (WHICH REQUIRES A WARRANT) means that they can't just harass people for being political enemies.

EDIT: Also, I suspect the choice was either discard the case and let the criminal go free or allow something that at worst only technically infringed his rights.

California has set a precedent that allows the police to search your phone without a warrant. With smartphones, do you not realize the implications there?

On my phone, I've got call logs, text messages, emails, web history, etc. All of that becomes fair game, sans warrant.

That really should bother you.

Let's say I get arrested for punching a retarded Canucks fan. They then search my phone, which was on my person, and see that I've been operating a harem through my text messages and emails on my phone. This is now perfectly possible in California, is it not?

[qzgCVHex]

How could it fall out of my jeans pocket?

In the event it's lost/stolen, I can immediately trigger a remote wipe anyway.

[Senasivar]

Rig it with explosives - it's the only way to be sure.

[DialOne]

Why would that be? It's not like they need a warrant to search the phone... it's no different than the police "getting a lead" any other way sans warrant, is it not? Ie, looking through open windows.

They need a court warrant to arrest and perform a search for the other crime, which requires valid evidence. The police are allowed to use anonymous tip-offs to investigate possible crimes and THAT isn't admissible as evidence in court. Do you think we should apply standard evidence rules to EVERYTHING the cops do? Do you also believe that criminals should never be arrested? These two things are roughly equivalent.

[Futfwrca]

Isn't the whole point that they don't require a warrant for phones?

Only after they've already arrested you! And only in the crime for which they arrested you!
If it's in their possession and it does not require a warrant to search it, why do they need a warrant to search it? They can't use it as evidence for any other crime. They can search it but the most it could do is give them a lead on a crime in which case they'd then need SEPARATE permissible evidence to prosecute.

[PetrZimin]

So you're saying if they arrest you for dangerous driving, and they search your phone and find a treasure trove of kiddy porn, they'd not be able to do anything?

You really think that's how it'd play out?

Yes...

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

HC has never been arrested. He still trusts police. One day, he'll grow up.

[Kghyutgykim]

I've never been arrested either, but I've met a few cops who've ****ed me around and abused their power.