FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Dynamic Plaques - FVT Plaques
FVT Plaques is introducing new dynamic plaques to recognize police and sheriff's...

Facial Recognition

Ask The Expert

Roger Rodriguez

Manager of Image Analytics

Top News

Calif. High Court OKs Cell Phone Searches Without Warrant

January 06, 2011  | 

Photo via Flicker (jurvetson).

The California Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement officers can search a suspect's cell phone without a warrant, after a lawful arrest, and that any incriminating texts, e-mails or other sensitive data can be used as evidence.

The Monday ruling stems from the 2007 arrest by Ventura County Sheriff's Deputy Victor Fazio of Gregory Diaz. Deputy Fazio witnessed Diaz participating in a police informant's controlled purchase of MDMA/ecstasy. A short time later, at the station, the deputy looked through the defendant's phone and found a text message that said "6 4 80," which meant "six pills of Ecstasy for $80."

After being shown this message by Deputy Fazio, who did not obtain a warrant, Diaz then admitted to participating in the drug sale, and he was charged with selling a controlled substance. Diaz pleaded not guilty, and his attorneys moved to suppress the fruits of the cell phone search — the text message and the statements he made when confronted with it — and argued that the search of the cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment.

The majority of justices, in their ruling, agreed that the cell phone was a personal item of Diaz's at the time of his arrest and during administrative processing at the station.

"Because the cell phone was immediately associated with defendant's person, [deputies were] entitled to inspect its contents without a warrant," the justices wrote in their decision.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kathryn Werdegar argued that the search was too invasive, because data on an electronic device would not fall under "searches of an arrestee's person and effects." Werdegar also called the search a "potential intrusion on informational privacy" in her opinion.

"Never before has it been possible to carry so much personal or business information in one's pocket or purse," Werdegar wrote. "The potential impairment to privacy if arrestees' mobile phones and handheld computers are treated like clothing or cigarette packages, fully searchable without probable cause or a warrant, is correspondingly great."

Although several previous federal court rulings, including those in Maine and Texas, appear to be in agreement with the California decision, the Ohio Supreme Court has come out on the other side of the issue. In December of 2009, it ruled that digital containers are more protected than other containers, such as pockets, wallets, backpacks and packs of cigarettes.

An attorney for Diaz plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, reports MSNBC. A ruling by the nation's high court would bring needed clarity, according to Devallis Rutledge, a former police officer and veteran prosecutor who contributes monthly to POLICE Magazine's Point of Law department.

"We need to have a U.S. Supreme Court decision on this because it's not good to have one law in Ohio and one in California," Rutledge told Campus Safety magazine. "My hope is that they will agree [with the Diaz decision], and say that we can't place on police officers in the field the burden of determining as technology advances whether a particular product that has been put out by Apple or Microsoft is going to fit into a category of things that are or aren't searchable.

"The only workable rule that the U.S. Supreme Court can come down with, that I see, is the same one that the California court came down with in Diaz; namely we're not going to differentiate between containers that hold data or information because we can't anticipate what they are going to look like."

Read the full California Supreme Court ruling.

Be the first to comment on this story

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent News

NFL Player, Son of Officer Says He Wants to Build Bridges Between Officers and Community
Doug Baldwin Sr. served 35 years in the Pensacola Police Department and later worked for...
Justice Department to Review Memphis Police Department
The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday it will examine community policing and use...
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Officially Charged with Criminal Contempt of Court
Arpaio and his supporters said it was no coincidence that the Justice Department announced...
FL Officer Injured During Hurricane Loses Leg to Flesh-Eating Bacteria
A Jacksonville Sheriff's Office police officer lost his leg after an injury that he...
Video: Family Members of Slain CA Officers Oppose Prisoner Release Proposition
Family members of two law enforcement officers slain in recent weeks have come out against...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Zip Code:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine