Community | October 03, 2011 | 68 comments

Supreme Court lets Police search text messages without a warrant

Image
KB723
By Reuters
Monday, October 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that the police can search text messages from an arrested criminal suspect’s cell phone without obtaining a warrant.

The justices refused to review the California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the search on the grounds that defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they are carrying when taken into custody.

The Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal by Gregory Diaz, who was convicted on drug charges. His attorneys said Supreme Court intervention was needed to resolve differing lower court rulings on how to apply precedent to warrantless searches of cell phone data.

Diaz in 2007 was arrested, searched and taken to a police station after driving a car in which his passenger sold six pills of the drug Ecstasy during an undercover operation. A small amount of marijuana also was found in his pocket.

The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department seized his cell phone and placed it with other evidence. Diaz initially denied any knowledge of the drug transaction.

During a break in the interrogation, an officer looked at the text message folder and discovered a coded message that appeared to refer to the Ecstasy sales. That was about 90 minutes after Diaz had been arrested.

The officer showed the text message to Diaz, who then admitted that he had taken part in the deal. He later pleaded guilty to transportation of a controlled substance and was sentenced to three years of probation.

Diaz appealed, challenging the search as unreasonable and for violating his constitutional rights. A California appeals court and the state Supreme Court both upheld the search as valid under a lawful arrest.

The U.S. Supreme Court already has on its docket a case about privacy rights, the police and modern technology. On November 8, it will hear arguments on whether the police need a warrant to use a global positioning system device to track a suspect’s movements.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/03/supreme-court-wont-review-drug-case-text-m...

"Another Freedom of Privacy taken away??? What do you folks think???"
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Culture,   18 more
  2. tags:
    Privacy Rights,  Freedom,  Privacy,  Supreme Court,  1 more
  3.     
    |

68 comments // Supreme Court lets Police search text messages without a warrant

  • MotherForTruth
  • bailey78
    • +1
      bailey78  

    • Like OH MY GAWD!! The debie downers have found Us. run everybody "flee even" don't let them touch you they have cooties. EEWWWWW

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • SoCalFramer
  • KB723
  • kvb1
    • -1
      kvb1  

    • You need only 4 justices to agree to hear a case to get it on the docket. I guess that means that there are not 4 Justices that believe the 4th Amendment means anything in modern America. This man was under arrest for driving a car while his passenger sold drugs to an undercover officer from the car. It would not have taken long to get a warrant for the cell phone. Just another right that has been removed from the People, and most of the country will never know or understand what just happened.

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
  • nardo1224
    • 0
      nardo1224  

    • The Supreme Court is nothing but a bunch of hired hands whose job is to protect the Big Money in this country. George Bush said the constitution is nothing but a document and we can now see that he was telling the truth.

    • 8 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • KB723
  • Lisayou
  • Incredulous
  • KB723
  • Incredulous
    • +1
      Incredulous  
    • KB723:

      Personally, I don't like the way these judges are appointed either....seems like every aspect of our government that was supposed to maintain checks and balances has been corrupted.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • jackshin
  • healthcare12345
  • KB723
  • Gillian_Marktoo
  • Anonmaly
    • +1
      Anonmaly  

    • Lmao... some female txt'd me the other day thinking she had txt'd "mommy"....

      It was bad, txt'd back "what?, this is your daddy..." (thought it was a friend messing with me...)...

      She started txt-ing crap... Txt'd her I bought the phone from a "crack-head" idk who she's looking for, leave me alone...

      She probably really thought I bought the phone of a crack-head... Only later did it dawn on me that mature adults aren't generally big txters..... Poor kid, she thinks she txt'd a crack-dealer....

      So no cops/feds, I don't deal crack, or buy phones from crack heads... Though I've seriously thought about giving my phone to a crack head on my way out of town.... Have fun with that shit....

      Damn I even troll strangers through txts.... Horrible....

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • bailey78
  • bailey78
    • -1
      bailey78  

    • Look if your stupid enough to use your everyday phone to do illegal busisness then your to stupid to be in that busisness. Oh and don't text anything that can be used againest you in a court of law.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • RevKen
    • +1
      RevKen  

    • I can guarantee that they will never read any of my text messages without a search warrant. They cannot read them with a search warrant either. I do not allow text messages on my phone.

      Seriously this is the single biggest reason we need to make sure Republicans do not get control of The White House. Conservative, activist judges that legislate from the bench are destroying our freedoms in this country.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • RevKen
  • bailey78
  • KB723
  • jsayler
    • +2
      jsayler  

    • Did we really expect this "supreme" court to uphold freedom of individual citizens? Awe come on, that ain't gonna happen. Roberts, Thomas & Scalia, please! There will be no America for citizens until corporations are reigned in if we can regain our highest court.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • jsayler
  • KB723
  • jackshin
    • +1
      jackshin  

    • What does "coded" mean, was it password protected. Even under the new "reasonable suspicion" standard, which is why he was legally detained, the police are limited to "in plain view" statutes.

      "During a break in the interrogation, an officer looked at the text message folder and discovered"

      That’s not in plain view, that's a search in as much as opening up a closed purse is a search. Did they legally impound the phone?

      The arrest means nothing in terms of a search, it’s just a stepped up detainment with chargers, but the police still need a warrant to search locked areas, like a home, and maybe like a phone.

    • 8 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • Saladin
    • -1
      Saladin  
    • SandyBerman:

      Yeah, if the documents are in such a place that it would be harassment for the police to take them from you without proof.

      If you're literally holding the damn thing, they're allowed to look at it.

      Think of it like this. If you arrest someone and they were running away with a footlocker that had a padlock on it. Would you *seriously* think they would need a warrant to open the damn thing just because it has a lock on it?

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
  • SandyBerman
  • jackshin
    • 0
      jackshin  
    • SandyBerman:

      yeah, But I believe that is the reason the supreme court is taken it up.
      But to address the assertion, No. An arrest does not imply an automatic search warrant.

      The police are not allowed to fish for evidence just because of an arrest, they have to be specific as to what they want to search, hence the warrant..

      For this case, does an arrest, given the circumstances, allow police to thumb through a phone database under the inevitable discovery doctrine, such that the police didn't require a search warrant?

      It may also be why the article states "discovered" to imply that there was a reasonable hypothetical (based on the arrest) to conduct the inquiry/search of the phone.

      I think.

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
    • 0
      jackshin  
    • SandyBerman:

      as far as the gun in the purse, true they could search with only reasonable suspicion. The more I write about it, the less I believe the guy has chance of winning, but I believe he has a case.

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
    • 0
      jackshin  
    • Saladin:

      The footlocker sounds like it was stolen, and running would raise reasonable suspicion if not probable cause. However this person was arrested for a drug sale, not stealing phones. The phone was not used in the criminal transaction. So the police need a warrant to search the phone. The simple fact is the police seized the phone, so it is legally assumed that the accused would not allow a search of the phone without a warrant. To not make that assumption by the police is violating the defendant’s right to not be forced to incriminate himself.

      And that is exactly what happened when the phone, a personal item, was seized and searched without a warrant.

    • 8 months ago
  • Saladin
    • -1
      Saladin  
    • jackshin:

      Explain to me, in any significant way, other than circumstance, how the phone differs from the footlocker.

      If the phone was unlocked, would it have been ok? If so, what about it being locked makes it different from any other locked item?

      And it's ridiculous to think that a phone wouldn't be a relevant part of a drug sale. Plus, that's exactly what they found when they looked at his records.

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
    • -1
      jackshin  
    • Saladin:

      "IIf you arrest someone and they were RUNNING AWAY with a footlocker…”
      Assuming a crime was in progress, there could be a bomb in the locker, that would absolutely provide reasonable suspicion in the moment of the crime.

      "If the phone was unlocked….”
      Unlocked phone: That search is what is being debated at SCOTUS. But if locked, absolutely, a warrant is need

      1. "And it's ridiculous…..
      Maybe, but I would say your wrong. One thing is for sure, an officer would love for you to make that assumption. If they ask you, then they need a warrant, either by your consent or from the courts.

      2. "And it's ridiculous to think that a phone wouldn't be a relevant part of a drug sale. Plus, that's exactly what they found when they looked at his records"
      True:
      [The inevitable discovery doctrine, can save the evidence from suppression of an illegal search. It does so by adding a layer of hypothetical inquiry to the independent source scenario.
      Inevitable discovery asks the judge to imagine that the police did not commit the Fourth Amendment violation -- the one that they did, in fact, commit, and that did directly lead to the seizure of the evidence. It then asks whether the evidence that was in reality obtained through the illegal search would have ultimately surfaced through legal police conduct that would have ultimately occurred if given the chance. ]
      However, I would argue, its not like the phone was going to despair; it was in the officer’s custody. long after the actual criminal transaction. If it was so inevitable, like the footlocker search, why didn’t they search the phone before arresting the accused. The officers searched the database for their convenience.

      Ultimately, though it is up to the judge.
      Generally speaking, and not to be taken as legal advice. .
      http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20050713.html

    • 8 months ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • How did this get to the supreme court? It seems like kind of a no brainer, unless he had password protection on his phone. Even then, the text could have been obtained through a warrent and a letter to his phone company.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • mickyjon420
  • KB723
    • +1
      KB723  
    • mickyjon420:

      LOL!!! No it's not just you, and great viewing I might add... Ahh yes, the Handiwork of some folks with nothing better to do... Kinda reminds me of them youngsters that get a kick out of launching Bottle Rockets out their ass... =)

    • 8 months ago
  • mickyjon420
  • KB723
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • That ruling actually makes sense.

      Would you seriously say that the police wouldn't be allowed to read a note the defendant had left in their pockets? Why would a cell phone be any different? Because it's digital instead of paper?

      If you get arrested and you have evidence on you, you're boned. You don't have some kind of right to withhold evidence once you've been arrested.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
  • thetrimsmith
  • SandyBerman
  • KB723
  • jackshin
    • -1
      jackshin  
    • SandyBerman:

      it just means that you can detain for a short of period of time for a limited investigation, the police could be pulling you over just for your protection. However, in order to physically detain, like in a holding cell, they would have to charge the person with a crime, eventually.

    • 8 months ago
  • jackshin
  • SandyBerman
    • SandyBerman  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • KB723
  • SandyBerman
  • KB723
    • -1
      KB723  
    • SandyBerman:

      LOL, Cool, I text all the time, it really helps when I am trying to reach a manufacturer... If I call my slaes rep and get the voice mail, that lets me know the person is online at their desk, so I text to their email to give me a call, it gets to the sales rep long before a voice mail does...

    • 8 months ago
  • SandyBerman
  • KB723
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
  • KB723
    • 0
      KB723  
    • Johnny_Los_Angeles:

      Exactly what I thought, but my friends do send me some outrageous text messages, I can see it now, sitting down with a police officer drinking coffee and eating donuts, getting a good laugh at some of my friends...

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
    • +1
      KB723  

    • The U.S. Supreme Court already has on its docket a case about privacy rights, the police and modern technology. On November 8, it will hear arguments on whether the police need a warrant to use a global positioning system device to track a suspect’s movements.

    • 8 months ago
  • KB723
    • +1
      KB723  

    • Supreme Court lets Police search text messages without a warrant

      "Another Freedom of Privacy taken away??? What do you folks think???"

    • 8 months ago
  • Imzadi
  • KB723
more from Community:
from the community

top videos