The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today held in Texas v. Granville that the Fourth Amendment protects against searches of cell
phones incident to arrest. Texans now cannot have the contents of their
cell phones and other electronic devices searched indiscriminately after they’re
booked in jail. This was a major privacy and Fourth Amendment victory, once again putting the state at the forefront of electronic privacy issues nationally.
As an attorney friend described the ruling in an email, "The
primary issue was whether the Fourth Amendment exception that allows
searches of an arrestee’s property for contraband also allows a
wholesale search of a cell phone. The decision has a good explanation
about why modern technology requires heightened protection above that
applied to shoes, pants, etc. The decision even cites with approval the
recent DC Circuit decision holding the NSA metadata collection program
unconstitutional." Here's an notable excerpt from the majority opinion:
The term "papers and effects" obviously carried a different connotation in the late eighteenth century than it does today. No longer are they stored only in desks, cabinets, satchels, and folders. Our most private information is now frequently stored in electronic devices such as computers, laptops, iPads, and cell phones, or in "the cloud" and accessible by those electronic devices. But the "central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment" has remained the same throughout the centuries; it is "the concern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects." This is a case about rummaging through a citizen's electronic private effects - a cell phone - without a warrant.
See the majority opinion from Judge Cochran, a concurrence from Judge Keller, and a lone dissent from Judge Keasler.
The US Supreme Court agreed this term to consider similar issues in a pair of related cases. According to Reuters, "The court will hear oral arguments in April and
issue rulings by the end of June. The cases are Riley v. California,
13-132 and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212." The Texas CCA opinion governs state and local law enforcement, not the feds.
RELATED: Amarillo appeals court: 'A cell phone is not a pair of pants.'
MORE: From EFF, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
MORE: From EFF, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
.jpg)
9 comments:
Sensible decision. Always interesting to notice WHO is attacking the Bill of Rights: Is it terrorists? Illegal immigrants? Criminals? Foreign powers? No. In every case it is always our OWN institutions, the same ones whose every member has taken an oath to preserve and protect them against all enemies foreign and domestic.
It sounds like we the people got something back, however the police can claim the phone might be a weapon and they need to positively make sure it is not. After the complete contents were downloaded, processed, inspected, and cataloged, it was found to be safe and returned the property. After all, they claim the right to go home safe at the end of the day. Sound familiar?
Good news
Interesting to know we are at the forefront of something because we certainly are at the back of the line on many CJ issues.
If this decision was actually based on the 4th amendment and not the Texas constitution (I haven't looked at the opinions, only your reporting of it here) and the SCOTUS cases go against the arresstees wouldn't this ruling be voided even as applied to state officials?
As I understand it states can offer greater protection but that protection has to be based on state law (whether statutory or constitutional) not federal.
While I like the result of this ruling I am (1) not sure it is correct and (2) not sure that SCOTUS will agree in any case.1351 2656388
While you're covering the CCA, Grits, please inform your readers that today Harris County won their expensive $234 court costs case today, when the CCA unanimously overturned the 14th Court of Appeals' decision that you previously covered.
A victory. Police routinely check cell phones.
A little off topic. I'm recently out of parole after serving 15 months on a 3 piece, poss of CS 1-4 grams, first time down.
Last night I attended a mandatory parole meeting and was told by attending live representatives from the US Attorney's Office, Dallas City Attorney, Dallas County DA, Dallas Police, Dallas Sheriff, US Marshal, FBI, ATF, Federal Probation, Dallas County Probation, State Parole (TDCJ) and Dallas City Courts (misdemeanor probation) that if I possess a even a spent shot gun shell I will do 10 years fed time (flat).
Second amendment? Overblown government?
In the entire front end, incarceration, and release the government has used the constitution as a checklist to violate rights...
Keep up the good work Scott...
Grits, I hope you can clear up some confusion for me.
The defendant was arrested and initially tried in Huntsville, as I understand, under the jurisdiction of 10th Court of Appeals (Waco).
So why was this case heard in Amarillo on appeal?
Cases are routinely transferred between appellate courts in the name of "docket equalization." The Seventh Court's website shows that this case was transferred shortly after notice of appeal was filed.
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=07-11-00415-CR
Post a Comment