California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to
obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the
time of any arrest. Because of that January ruling from the state’s high
court, the California Legislature
passed legislation
to undo it — meaning
Brown is taking the side of the Supreme Court’s
seven justices instead of the state Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert last week in
Diaz v. California, a Fourth Amendment case from California’s Supreme Court which
held that a cell phone can be searched incident to arrest. The Assembly approved
the bill 70-0 and the state Senate, 32-4.
The bill’s sponsor,
Sen. Mark Leno
(D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious
veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more
effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone
interview. Under California statehouse rules, neither Leno nor any other lawmaker may introduce the legislation for at least a year.
Northrop v. Trippett (6th Cir. 2001) 265 F.3d 372, 379: When
conducting a search incident to arrest, police may search items within
the “immediate control” of the person arrested.
(Wired) Cops Need Warrant for Cellphone Location Data, according to Judge Terrence McVerry of the Western Pennsylvania U.S. District Court on September 11, 2008.
The Obama administration’s position that the government can force
mobile carriers to hand over cellphone tower location information on
their customers without a warrant is wrong, two legal scholars say.
scholars Susan Freiwald, of the USF School of Law, and Peter Swire, of Ohio State University wrote:
"Because CSLI acquisition is hidden, indiscriminate and intrusive, and because
it reveals information over a period of time, it should be subject to
the highest level of Fourth Amendment oversight (the same procedures used for wiretapping and video surveillance),"
Their words, published by the American Constitution Society, came a month
after the Justice Department made its claim in a little-noticed case
that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply. In April 20, 2009 Scholars Rejected Obama’s Stance on Warrantless Cell-Phone Records
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to
obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the
time of any arrest. Because of that January ruling from the state’s high
court, the California Legislature passed legislation
to undo it — meaning Brown is taking the side of the Supreme Court’s
seven justices instead of the state Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert last week in Diaz v. California, a Fourth Amendment case from California’s Supreme Court which held that a cell phone can be searched incident to arrest. The Assembly approved
the bill 70-0 and the state Senate, 32-4.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark Leno
(D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious
veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more
effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone
interview. Under California statehouse rules, neither Leno nor any other lawmaker may introduce the legislation for at least a year.
