Brian Doherty from the May 2011 issue
According to a January decision by the California Supreme Court, police can search your mobile phone without a warrant after taking you into custody. Like many blows to the Fourth Amendment, the case involved the victimless crime of drug dealing. In People v. Diaz, the court ruled that police did not violate the rights of Gregory Diaz, a suspected Ecstasy dealer, when they read his text messages.
U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as U.S. v. Robinson (1973) and U.S. v. Edwards (1974) imply that police may search anything on an arrestee's person, both to protect officer safety and to find evidence of a crime. But another precedent, U.S. v. Chadwick (1977), seemed to support Diaz's position that the search of his cell phone required a warrant.
In that case, the Court declared that a search of luggage in the trunk of a suspect's car more than an hour after his arrest was too far removed from his person and the time of the arrest to be legally valid. By contrast, the majority in Diaz decided that the cell phone was "immediately associated with [the defendant's] person" and therefore searchable.
Dissenting Justice Kathryn Werdeger argued that a mobile phone, particularly a smart phone, which is essentially a portable computer, is qualitatively different from a jacket pocket or pack of cigarettes. In 2009 the Ohio Supreme Court likewise decided that the sheer amount of information available from modern phones distinguishes them from a small container on one's person.
Various federal district courts have agreed with the California Supreme Court that a cell phone search "incident to arrest" is constitutional. It seems likely that the question eventually will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Nomic|5.4.11 @ 2:01AM|#
Next big cell feature? Encryption, baby!
|6.5.11 @ 8:16PM|#
This is good news! What if the phone being searched was used to view obscene websites? We can't let that happen; by searching everything anyone does/has we will save this country's morals! hehe.
nike shox|8.1.11 @ 9:25PM|#
is good
xiingguan|1.10.12 @ 2:19AM|#
This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel