Court Rules Police Can Search Cell Phones Without a Warrant

Apparently, like Arizona, California just can’t seem to go through a whole news cycle without somehow crowbarring their way into the headlines.

If you haven’t been following the news in the golden state, last week the California Supreme Court ruled that it is now okay in California for cops to search through a person’s cell phone text messages without a warrant after that person has been placed under arrest.

The case in question, People v. Diaz, involved a defendant who was arrested under suspicion for selling ecstasy, the illegal party drug that for some reason is still popular despite the fact that the 90s ended over a decade ago.  The defendant denied any wrongdoing, but after the cops arrested him, they went through his cell phone and found a message that implied he was selling the illegal pills.  When the cops show the defendant the message, the defendant caved and confessed to dealing the drugs.

In court, the defendant alleged this violated his constitutional right to privacy in an attempt to get his charge dismissed.  But unfortunately not everyone can be like Gideon when it comes to changing the law for the better, sometimes it can end up becoming worst for everyone else.  Don’t take that to mean that I don’t think you should fight for your rights, but just know that it’s not always a happy ending as it was in Diaz’s case.

Why isn’t this a good thing for Californians?  Because the court’s ruling doesn’t just extend to cell phone text messages, but also to voicemails, pictures, calendars, and anything else that appears in your cell phone.  Essentially the court has given carte blanche to California cops when it comes to searching you without a warrant.

Now for those of you not in the legal world this can sound pretty insane, or not depending on your opinion regarding police freedom, but it wasn’t just spun from nothing.  Our country’s legal system is one that’s based on case precedence, meaning that the courts of today can’t make rulings based on a whim, but rather must make them based within the limits set forth by previous court decisions.

The California Supreme Court is no exception and made this most recent decision based off the US Supreme Court Case, United State v. Robinson, in which the defendant was arrested for a traffic infraction, but when searched by the arresting officer, the cop found a cigarette container that had drugs in it.  The search in that case was also done without a warrant, but the court rule this was okay as a search incident to arrest.  Robinson was an extension of this old exception which allowed for cops, after lawfully arresting a person, to search that person’s “grabbing area” (meaning the suspect’s immediate surroundings) for any weapons or evidence that may be hidden or destroyed by the suspect.  Robinson made it so that any belongings held on by a suspect at the time of arrest could be admitted into evidence against the person even though it had nothing to do with the crime he or she was being arrested for and the police had no warrant to do the search.

Fast forward to today to the California Supreme Court’s (mis)interpretation of Robinson, and the state’s citizens are now subject to a very prejudicial police search power.  Why is it so bad you ask?  It’s because this ruling doesn’t just increase the scope on cell phone searches; it also increases the scope on all technology based searches in general.  Meaning if you’re now arrested holding a laptop, what’s to stop a cop from going through all your personal files and emails?  Previously cops had to grab a search warrant or face the possibility of having any evidence gathered thrown out due to the exclusionary rule.

Now there is no such threat as long as the arrested individual is carrying a technological device of any kind (iPad, iPod, smart phone, camera, etc.) on their person when they get popped.  The police will essentially have free reign to do what they want under this overly intrusive new police search power.

But what do you guys think?  Is searching through a physical container such as a cigarette case that appeared in Robinson the same thing as going through someone’s cell phone?