(Calif. Supreme) Court OKs searches of cell phones without warrant

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The California Supreme Court allowed police Monday to search arrestees' cell phones without a warrant, saying defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they're carrying when taken into custody.

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, "this loss of privacy allows police not only to seize anything of importance they find on the arrestee's body ... but also to open and examine what they find," the state court said in a 5-2 ruling.

The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation's high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.

The dissenting justices said those rulings shouldn't be extended to modern cell phones that can store huge amounts of data.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/03/BA5N1H3G12.DTL&tsp=1

[hlthe2b]

1. So, if you use high level complex password protection?

[freshwest]

6. Probably no help.

[boppers]

8. So, if your purse has a lock on it?

It's already been determined that you can be compelled to disclose passwords.

[Egnever]

11. They would really have to want you for something

Your average arestee will not be worth the expense of breaking that encryption. Just like they dont do DNA evidence at car wrecks, or hell car thefts for that matter.

[pipoman]

2. This ruling will be upheld by SCOTUS if it goes that far..

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Yep, precedent IS the USSC

[Art_from_Ark]

12. Except for bu$h vs. Gore

in which case it is a "one time only" ruling :argh:

[somone]

3. SMS Eraser for BlackBerry

$29.95

[nyy1998]

4. Isn't most of the Cali SC left-leaning?

If so, really interesting decision

[kath]

7. Jeebus H. Christ on a trailer hitch.

we are truly screwn...

[avaistheone1]

9. That sucks.

[Egnever]

10. I gotta agree with this.