The state’s highest court, in its first decision on cellphone privacy for criminal suspects, ruled Wednesday that police in Massachusetts do not need a search warrant to examine the cellphone of someone they have arrested to see who has been in recent phone contact.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling was limited in scope, giving police access only to the cellphone call log; it did not address constitutional rights to privacy for other cellphone content, such as texts and e-mails. The court will leave that broader issue “open for another day,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford.
Comments
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - U.S. Constitution, 4th Amendment
A cellphone is no different from the "papers and effects" of the 18th century. Searching through phone records should OBVIOUSLY require a warrant. This is an outrageous overreach by the Mass SJC. For shame.
You seem to gloss over the term "unreasonable" in your diatribe. This is no different than the police having the authority to search someone who has been arrested for shoplifiting for more merchandise. "Search incidental to lawful arrest" is a process that is longstanding and constitutional. The search is authorized,on an arrested person, for evidence of the crime for which the person has been arrested or for weapons to effect an escape.
This story really points to how dumb criminals are. Erasing/deleting the "recent calls" list in one's phone would avoid the cellphone becoming evidence. Only a court order to request copies of calls made/received, from the cell phone provider, would then show the number dialed/received, which, under the current SJC ruling might not be allowed.
This is another example of how the drug war is wasting our resources. The only good thing that's coming out of this is the chance it's affording us to explore the broader issue involved, so that when we need the answer -- for when we have legitimate problems -- we'll already have it.
This comment has been removed.