The California Supreme Court ruled that phones obtained following an arrest can be searched without a warrant by police. The decision which had a 5 – 2 majority reasoned that phones were personal property and “immediately associated” with the suspect person.
Justice Kathryn Werdegar however wrote that the ruling violates the U.S Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, and subsequently information stored on a cell phone should not be examined without a warrant.
The debate follows an incident where Gregory Diaz was convicted on evidence found in the man’s cell phone which showed messages negotiating the price of drugs. Though his defence tried to suppress the evidence from the phone, both trial and Second District Court of Appeal held that the search was justified.
The Supreme Court used two cases as a guide to reach its decision. United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973) which held it was legal for the arresting officer to search the arrestees cigarette packet, and United States v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1977), where federal agents were found to be lawful to search a foot locker.
Justice Kathryn Werdegar however wrote that the ruling violates the U.S Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, and subsequently information stored on a cell phone should not be examined without a warrant.
The debate follows an incident where Gregory Diaz was convicted on evidence found in the man’s cell phone which showed messages negotiating the price of drugs. Though his defence tried to suppress the evidence from the phone, both trial and Second District Court of Appeal held that the search was justified.
The Supreme Court used two cases as a guide to reach its decision. United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973) which held it was legal for the arresting officer to search the arrestees cigarette packet, and United States v. Chadwick 433 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1977), where federal agents were found to be lawful to search a foot locker.
Don's Miss : Latest posts
