A wallet is the closest low-tech comparison to a smart phone - it contains your personal information and may have information not directly connected to the case - receipts, notes, etc.

Are they allowed to go through your wallet? If so, this is a reasonable, if annoying, extension of that practice.

It's just as far as I know they're NOT allowed to go through your wallet. They can seize it while you're being booked or whatever, but can't go digging for your ID. They always ask you to take it out, likely possibly so there's no chance a bribe could take place (I wanna fix it here in Brainerd)

This is all the more reason why it is important to use strong encryption for your digital devices. If the police can search the contents of your phone without a warrant, so too could a thief who steals the same.

There is no substitution for good cyber security practices such as encryption and strong passwords.

Reason had a blog item on this. There are some good links and they discuss security options.

One of the easiest things to do is to activate your password option; many of us don't. Police may be able to search the phone but they can't compel you to give up your password. This won't stop a serious effort to get in but it will stop a casual search.

Hopefully, smart people will appeal this and it will be recognized that smart phones are more like computers that wallets. You can't conceal contraband in them, so police shouldn't be able to search them without a warrant.

This is an end-run around the laws that prevent them getting the information off of computers without a warrant. Since so many people are now doing their email and web surfing from their phones, this give the police the opportunity to find other "crimes" to charge you with.

It's a potential bonanza for them in terms of being able to levy new fines.

"It's just as far as I know they're NOT allowed to go through your wallet."
- Vinnie Bartilucci

I worked in corrections for ten years. Yes, we went through wallets. We were looking for things of value like cash and credit cards so that we could list them on a property sheet, to show that the accused left jail with everything they came with. And well, if we found your meth or pot or coke while we were doing that, too bad so sad.

There is, however, no reason to search a phone. It may contain valuable information, but it can't fall out and get lost. The gendarme should have to get a warrant, same as if they wanted to search your computer's hard drive.

To make it worse, it's a relatively common trick to:

1) Put dropbox on your desktop
2) Put dropbox on your smartphone which then syncs to your desktop

and even

3) Put your Windows My Documents folder in your Dropbox which yes, really makes your windows my folder accessible from your smartphone

meaning

If you do that in California, the cops can search your Desktop's Window's My Documents folder.

!!

The point jerry makes demonstrates why this actually isn't like searching items found on your person. Because much, and often most, of the data isn't physically on the phone. It's accessible using the phone, from a remote data store. So this ruling is a bit like saying that because the police found your keyring on your person, they can access any property you have that those keys can open.

Case in point - anyone who has a smartphone these days tends to have it linked to their work Exchange server. And there's no way in HELL the judge would allow them to search a company's mails in a warrant to search your computer/phone.

This goes beyond bullshit the more I think about it.

Two hypotheticals: Are police allowed to flip through your address book if they arrest you and it's on your person? If you were carrying documents in your briefcase when they arrest you?

I'm opposed to this, and here's why: My understanding of the legal rationale for allowing warrantless search of an arrested person is that it contains two justifications: (1) to ensure that the person doesn't have a weapon which can be used against the arresting officer, and (2) to ensure that the arrested person doesn't have an opportunity to destroy evidence that they are carrying. Neither of these justifications applies to a cell phone -- it's obviously not a credible weapon, and once the phone has been seized, the arrestee can't do anything with it any more, so there is evidence-in-jeopardy rationale. Once the phone is seized, the police can obtain a warrant at their leisure if they can come up with a credible justification (and most of the time, they can). So there is no rationale justifying a warrantless search.

So Peter, as I understand the theory, they are not supposed to be able to do those things. However, I suspect a lot of courts let them get away with it.

This ruling reminds me of my present job. Most of the people in administrative positions are clueless about phone accessories and can barely text. This judge was probably one of those ancients who don't realize your calendar is your planner and your notepad is your daily to do list. I get so annoyed with people who are so snobbish about phone usage. Like it's a character flaw to know how to use one well.

Going through a cell phone is a violation of privacy and allowing the government to do so in this manner is a huge threat to personal freedom. What about the innocent person who is incarcerated? Innocent until proven guilty is farcical?

Fourth Amendment:

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.

This needs to be appealed. If I'm walking down the street and get stopped for an open container, the possession of a cell phone is not any more germane to the case than me carrying a pen and paper.

That the court didn't get this -- doesn't surprise me -- but does offend me.

This is why the current concept of the Supreme Court is wrong. Under the current 'system', we've been tricked into believing that if the Supreme Court OK's constitutional violations, that it's OK and we must accept it. The justice system - including the Supreme Court - is, or should be, there only to enforce the constitution, which is the highest law of the land - higher than the court. The Supreme Court does not actually have the authority to violate and override the Constitution because the Supreme Court derives its authority based only on the consent of the governed, like every other part of the justice system. The highest law in the land is the Constitution, not the random nose-picked rulings of a small handful of individuals on a bench.