Do the police have the right to search your cellphone without a warrant? Barack Obama thinks so
Here is the back story:
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases
Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
It seems to me that once a person is arrested for a crime and is in custody it would be of no great impediment or detriment to the case for the police to go to a court and ask for a warrant before going through a person’s notebooks and calendars yet the Supreme Court has already ruled otherwise.
The fourth amendment is pretty clear when is states that “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 yet that is exactly the opposite of the Obama regime’s argument and previous Supreme Court rulings on this issue. Just because a precedent has been set does not mean it is a good or lawful precedent and I would argue this one such case of the Supreme Court making bad law. Should not a person’s notebooks, calendars and now cellphones be considered a part of a person’s effects?
In cases like the one mentioned above there is no doubt the police would have been able to secure the warrant and convict this man without violating his fourth amendment right. This man was obviously a criminal, and I am not defending him, but that does not mean he is not entitled to his Constitutional rights.
The Obama regime is looking to expand upon previous Supreme Court rulings and this is the classic case of the slippery slope. Our Constitutional rights are slowly being eroded. If this is allowed by the Supreme Court it will only be a matter of time before anyone being pulled over for a moving violation will have their cellphones searched without just cause simply because the police are on a fishing expedition for anything they can find.
In an age where the Federal Government can data-mine all cellphone calls with a blanket warrant, if there is a warrant at all, intercept emails, spy on Facebook postings, and track a person’s internet browsing history this is the next logical step towards a police state with 100% surveillance of all American citizens. It will be a slow process, this will not happen overnight, but over time we will have no privacy left whatsoever and we will no longer be secure in our belongings.
When are Americans finally going to stand up and say enough is enough? Big Brother is watching and he does not like what he sees…..
Rate this:
Share this:
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
America's Watchtower 
I agree, Steve. It seems that slowly, decision by decision, courts are eroding the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
I remember a video of a ‘border/immigration checkpoint’ – of course it was no where NEAR the border. Anyway…. The driver refused to answer questions, keep asking if he was free to go. The agents kept him there for several minutes, not really saying much. An agent came out of their building and said he could go. While he was sitting there, exercising his Right to not answer questions, they were running his plates. WTF? So, now, even refusing to answer questions doesn’t protect our information.
LikeLike
Yes, slowly but surely our right are being eroded and too many people do not see this. The case you mentioned shows us that while the person thought he was doing nothing wrong the government was still checking him out while trying to fish for anything they could find.
LikeLike
Remember Steve the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 3 that police don’t need a search warrant before they open your mouth and take a swab of DNA if you’ve been arrested for a “serious crime.”
The question is what is an ‘unreasonable search’ . How far can the police search before they need a warrant? If they fear evidence could be destroyed is that sufficient justification for a search? In the past the criminal would not have been read his ‘Miranda Rights’ the police would have been free to use what ever means to get information.
Our freedoms have been slowly squeezed with every court ruling and BO is ruling as a dictator saying and doing what he wants.
LikeLike
Great points Chris. We are seeing our rights disappear before our very eyes and at this point SCOTUS is no friend to liberty!
LikeLike
It’s for our security. Steve. Do you feel more secure? Most likely you feel less securre, right? Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about, didn’t he?
LikeLike
Somehow I feel less secure and you are right, Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about!
LikeLike
When was the last time any politician or bureaucrat willing sought to meaningfully limit the powers of his position? As a candidate, they will criticize the overreach of the incumbent, promise to change how things are done, and when elected carry on with business as usual. Of course, the expectation is that we sheepishly accept that we do not have the expectation of any privacy because we have nothing to worry about.
As a side note, I would love to see the ninth amendment given the same attention as the tenth.
LikeLike
You are right, politicians on both sides of the aisle do not have a problem with the way the government works, they just want to be the party in charge and we are the ones who always get screwed. I would love to see the ninth amendment followed more closely and it goes hand in hand with the tenth, but then again I want to see the Constitution in general upheld and neither party really gives a damn about it.
LikeLike
I was stopped twice in one day for a seat belt check. A line of about 5 cars were pulled over including me for a DUI check with the cop putting his face about two inches from my face. Never did I think I would see this day.
LikeLike
And this is as good as it gets, it is all downhill from here.
LikeLike
NO! they don’t have the right without a warrant! We have privacy rights as individuals! They have to have “cause” to think there is something illegal going on! Obama is a Tyrant!
LikeLike
I could not agree more!
LikeLike
The police will always, always attempt to expand their power unless reigned in. And in todays world of electronic gadgets of all kinds it is becoming easier for them to be more intrusive. Those in power, whether the congress, the courts or the executive are reluctant to give up the powers they have. They are like the little kid in the candy story and will gorge themselves until some higher power stops them. It is becoming quite obvious to any logical observer that this will not happen with the present group of leaders we have either in the courts, congress and certainly the White House. Power is addictive and as long as the people are docile and sheepish those in power will not be moved by the voices of a few. I don’t have the answer! Frankly sometime I think revolution and a new beginning is the only solution, but who among us will fire that first shot. It is not enough, not nearly enough just to sound the alarm—-the Paul Reveres are out there but there are no minutemen on the green to meet the enemy.
LikeLike
You are right Ron, they will always seek to expand their power and now it seems as if they have a friend in SCOTUS, if the court will not reign them in it will be up to the people, but who is out there?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Cold Dead Hands Days and commented:
Illegitimate as a federal reserve note!
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike