California; searches of cellphones require warrrants

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

apparently the law is finally getting in step with the electronic age.

There Will Be No More Warrantless Cell Phone Searches in California

I haven't done any research on the ruling. Just saw the article.

Apparently Ohio made this same decision as well:

Privacy Win: Cellphone Search Without Warrant Declared Illegal

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-6426.pdf

glad to hear. Now, if Michigan can fall into line, especially since they are known to use equipment that can download any information within any cellphone in a matter of seconds.

 

[quincy]

Cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant in Michigan, unless the cell phone owner has voluntarily relinguished control of the phone and okayed the search.

There has been some question, however, as to how voluntarily some searches have been. The question of whether cell phone searches have been conducted surreptitiously remains unanswered because the State Police have been reluctant to turn over their "Physical Analyzer" logs despite an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request. The FOIA request has been met with resistance and (unreasonable?) monetary demands to accommodate the request.

 

[justalayman]

quincy;2914664]Cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant in Michigan, unless the cell phone owner has voluntarily relinguished control of the phone and okayed the search.

There has been some question, however, as to how voluntarily some searches have been. The question of whether cell phone searches have been conducted surreptitiously remains unanswered because the State Police have been reluctant to turn over their "Physical Analyzer" logs despite an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request. The FOIA request has been met with resistance and (unreasonable?) monetary demands to accommodate the request

Glad to hear the warrant is a requirement. After speaking with Carl, it would appear that that is not universally accepted (and supported by the original reference in my post here). I always believed one should be but of course, what I believe and what is accepted are often two different things.

Here is an article that goes into a bit more depth concerning your statements.

Law Enforcement Smartphone Forensics - American Civil Liberties Union - Popular Mechanics

I don't know which of the Cellebrite systems the Mi police use but here is the website for the highest level system offered:

Cellebrite - Mobile Forensics and Data transfer solutions - UFED Physical Pro

from that site:

UFED Physical Pro provides access to data inaccessible by logical methods:
Phone user lock code
Deleted data including: deleted call history, text messages, images, phonebook entries and videos
Access to internal application data
Phone internal data including: IMSI history, past SIM cards used, past user lock code history

deleted data? scary.

 

[quincy]

Definitely scary.

This has become a serious issue for journalists, because information for stories are stored on electronic devices and source data, among other data, can easily be compromised in a search.

Warrantless searches of cell phones are just plain unconstitutional.

 

[justalayman]

Warrantless searches of cell phones are just plain unconstitutional.

I agree and glad to hear California has finally realized this. Now, what other states believe as California did?


and did you notice the Ohio ruling was 4-3? That doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy inside. That means that only by one vote did Ohio decide phone searches require a warrant.

I hope that this will reach federal review somewhere. That would surely remedy the problem with each state having to deal with it.