Recently Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before searching cell phones of those arrested. The state Assembly passed the bill, but Brown defended himself saying "the courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections." The bill was originally proposed after the California Supreme Court case People v. Diaz, in which Gregory Diaz was arrested for drug possession and his phone was searched just 90 minutes after his arrest. The courts upheld this allowing it to be okay.
Brown's decision brings up the constitutionality, specifically about the fourth amendment, of these searches. I do not agree with Brown's decision. Cell phones are property like houses and should need a search warrant to be searched. I also do not understand Brown's defense. Yes, courts, not him, are better suited to resolve the issues on specific cases, but now that warrants aren't needed by law enforcement, how will courts be involved? Though I disagree with Brown, I do understand some of his points of view. If a person has already been arrested, it is because of probable cause, so it should be allowed to search their belongings on them at the time of the arrest. This could include their cell phone. What do you think? Is this or isn't this an infringement on the fourth amendment?
Brown's decision brings up the constitutionality, specifically about the fourth amendment, of these searches. I do not agree with Brown's decision. Cell phones are property like houses and should need a search warrant to be searched. I also do not understand Brown's defense. Yes, courts, not him, are better suited to resolve the issues on specific cases, but now that warrants aren't needed by law enforcement, how will courts be involved? Though I disagree with Brown, I do understand some of his points of view. If a person has already been arrested, it is because of probable cause, so it should be allowed to search their belongings on them at the time of the arrest. This could include their cell phone. What do you think? Is this or isn't this an infringement on the fourth amendment?
1 comment:
I am in complete agreement with you Mitchell. I believe that the assembly may be making a mistake, because this issue may evolve into something "complex and case specific," to constitutionally. Although in some aspects it may be better for California's police to have the ability to search electronics when someone is arrested--in order to ensure that there is no one else in harm or in affiliation with the transgression, and gain more information, it is also clear violation of the 4th amendment as you stated. I think that this infringement of the fourth amendment by far overrides Brown's reasoning. I found additional information as well at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/10/warrant-cellphone-tablet.html
Post a Comment