http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/p...hone-searches/
Not much to add to this.
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/p...hone-searches/
Not much to add to this.
It's only a small jump from warrantless searching of cell phones to warrantless searching of computers - they are practically the same thing these days.
The judge's ruling was limited to a specific and limited search associated with what the police were investigating- in this case phone numbers recently called, to see if they were to drug related people.
The judge was concerned that the evidence could easily be erased if not gathered immediately. If the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed why not seize the phone, put it in the evidence locker until you get a search warrant?
At first blush I would say this infringes on rights to privacy.
Wouldn't this be the same (or similar) as Rupert Murdoch's tapping into cell phone data for news stories?
my junk is ugly
I don't agree with the court decision; but it isn't as broad a ruling as the media reports.