Police Can Search Your Cell Phone

Remove all ads!

This is what happens when I'm half posting, half participating in a work related conference call. Ruling was clearly stated at the outset of this thread, yet I decided to use whatever word I happened to feel like using at the moment. Thanks for the correction.

Pick donuts? Like from a donut field where they can be found growing?

 

Off a donut tree, duh!

 

if they believed they would find evidence relating to the crime you have been arrested for yes, if youve been seen in public threatening people with a gun and all you have on you when arrested was a brief case you can damn well guarentee they would crack it open to see if there was a gun inside.

I dont think it was a grey zone, simply noone has tried to get off with a drug dealing conviction arguing that evidence obtained from their phone violated their privacy. obtaining evidence has to reasonable to the offense with which you have been arrested, if you arrest someone for drug dealing, there is reasonable doubt that evidence may be contained on their phone, officers can also search properties, vehicles and computers in relation to this crime. If youve been arrested for an affray, the police would have to come up with a pretty damn good reason to search your house or phone in relation to this offence.

 

That is exactly what it means.

Not their right to privacy - The case was argued under the 4th amendment of the constitution that taking the phone was a unreasonable search and seizure. With the computer example stated above, they don't just take your computer - they show up at your house with a search warrant and take the computer. The defense arguement was that the same should apply with a cell phone - that they shouldn't be able to seize your phone without a warrant.

The ruling was that anything carried on your person could be searched, including cell phones and thier contents. I imagine it would also extend to things like brief cases and laptops.

 

if the US police need a warrant to search a vital piece of evidence the US is the stupidest place on earth

 

When should a warrant be needed then? For non-vital, trivial searches?

 

A warrant shouldnt be required at all, its a total waste of time and resources

 

Well, we have warrants in the US, and there are reasons for having them. I don't know that this (alone) makes the US the "stupidest place on earth", but you're certainly welcome to your opinion. I've always felt, for example, that the Land of Oompa-Loompahs was stupider.

 

the land of Oompa-Loompahs doesnt exist

the US does, where people think that the criminal should be protected by useless proceedings that allow criminals to dispose of evidence before the police have a chance to gather it - a warrant serves no purpose the only reason police should need to gather evidence is if youve been arrested for a crime

 

a search doesnt result in an innocent person being convicted, a search can either;

A: turn up evidence - the person is charged.

B: turn up no evidence - the innocent is released.

without the search, you would never know, you could keep a dangerous drug baron on the street

 

Sure, the land of Oompa-Loompa's doesn't exist, you got me there. But what am I supposed to say to a guy who calls my country the "stupidest place on earth" because we don't allow our policemen to enter our homes and places of business for any reason they so choose. Having a check and balance type process, as long as it isn't overly cumbersome, is actually a pretty good idea from the perspective of this law-abiding American citizen who values his privacy.

 

Well, based on the result of court's ruling - police are not prevented from doing so. The court affirmed that they only need a warrant to enter your house.

 

The idea that rights need to be respected isn't a bad one. But sometimes, it appears that the laws that strive to safeguard the rights of citizens merely enable the criminals to get away with crime, which is counterproductive because those crimes also infringe upon the rights of their victims.

Warrant laws are a tricky business. the idea that vital evidence can be excluded because the police didn't cross all of their Ts and dot their Is is deeply disturbing to me.

 

but why should any search involving a person who has been arrested for a crime be illegal?

why should anyone who is prepared to break the law be protected by the law?
Ive always said, why should a murder be protected under the human rights act? he has taken away the basic human rights of another, he is an animal.

 

why would you have any reason to believe that a judge (someone who is paid emough that they are totally removed from society) has any more logical reasoning to decide over trained and experienced officers who fight crime on a daily basis whether a search is required to obtain evidence, Im glad that in the UK the force can issue warrants for itself and bring law breakers to justice... it just comes as a shame that the judicial service in the UK is incapable of handing down sentences which punish criminals or scratch the surface of punishing the crime..