- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 8,649
Right well the device getting lost is always an issue for privacy but so is losing your brief case. I expect that when my device doesn't have a sim card in it the documents stored on it are private as long as its on my person. As the article goes into its not about illegal activity, its about privacy. The warrant is there to define what can be searched and seized and has an authority overseeing it. If they find something illegal in search they are going to seize it with or without the warrant (last i checked...).
Your contact list in a search becomes a list of known associates. My contact list is co workers who happen to include drug dealers and to some people that association might be damaging if it got out. Without a warrant that can be collected during any arrest including ones not related to anything that could possibly be on the phone. Your religion, political affiliation, contacts, relations are likely in the open already especially if your famous or serving the public. But anything thats not and information stored on an electronic device on your person is expected to have some value of privacy.
The case obviously stems from a case of illegal activity. But the entire point of the protection in the home is there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The exceptions were written for various reasons including officer safety. But they are dated and even worse, very hard to define under the ever evolving state of how we store and move our information. A paperless lawyer might never exist but if he did his phone would be part of the equation.
The law is there to protect privacy, not illegal activity. Your legal religious, political and social activities as documented on your electronic device are information potentially private and protected in an unrelated arrest. Or not that's what the court is on about now. That or we can go back to the days where we arrest everyone we think might be a commie. Don't go keeping The Communist Manifesto on your phone when you get caught jay walking! Yeah yeah discrimination != arrest
Your contact list in a search becomes a list of known associates. My contact list is co workers who happen to include drug dealers and to some people that association might be damaging if it got out. Without a warrant that can be collected during any arrest including ones not related to anything that could possibly be on the phone. Your religion, political affiliation, contacts, relations are likely in the open already especially if your famous or serving the public. But anything thats not and information stored on an electronic device on your person is expected to have some value of privacy.
The case obviously stems from a case of illegal activity. But the entire point of the protection in the home is there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. The exceptions were written for various reasons including officer safety. But they are dated and even worse, very hard to define under the ever evolving state of how we store and move our information. A paperless lawyer might never exist but if he did his phone would be part of the equation.
The law is there to protect privacy, not illegal activity. Your legal religious, political and social activities as documented on your electronic device are information potentially private and protected in an unrelated arrest. Or not that's what the court is on about now. That or we can go back to the days where we arrest everyone we think might be a commie. Don't go keeping The Communist Manifesto on your phone when you get caught jay walking! Yeah yeah discrimination != arrest
Last edited:
