Privacy Digest

News that can impact your privacy.
Login/Register
What is OpenID?
  • Log in using OpenID
  • Cancel OpenID login
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Home Blogs MacRonin's blog
    • FAQ
    • Wishlists
    • Contact
    • Categories/RSS

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Privacy Digest 
Bookmark This Page 

Syndicate

Syndicate content
more

Advertisements

Tracking System
Tracking System
Private Detectives
Fleet Management
Hosting

Popular content

Last viewed:

  • Free Speech and "Cyber-bullying"
  • NSA Shields Government Networks With More AT&T Secret Rooms
  • Indefinite Detention: No Guilty Verdict Required
  • Laptop Security while Crossing Borders
  • Jason Rouault - The openLiberty Project
  • DNA in the U.K.
  • Let 1,000 YouTube Debate Remixes Bloom!

tags in Topics

Activists Alert Anonymity Companies Copyright Court (US) Databases Data Mining DMCA Editorial EFF Entertainment Exploits Fourth Amendment Government Hmmm ID Infrastructure Law Enforcement Laws Politics Privacy Remember Reports Rights Security Spin Zone Surveillance Telecommunications Tracking
more tags

View blog authority
Congressional Research
Broadcast Flag

Cellphone Searches (NYT Editorial)

Submitted by MacRonin on December 26, 2009 - 11:41am
  • Court (US)
  • Decisions
  • Editorial
  • Fourth Amendment
  • Government
  • Hmmm
  • Law Enforcement
  • Legal
  • Ohio
  • Ohio Supreme Court
  • Privacy
  • Remember
  • Rights
  • Telecommunications
  • Wireless

Cellphone Searches: Via NYT > Privacy.

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck an important blow for privacy rights, ruling that the police need a warrant to search a cellphone. The court rightly recognized that cellphones today are a lot more than just telephones, that they hold a wealth of personal information and that the privacy interest in them is considerable. This was the first such ruling from a state supreme court. It is a model for other courts to follow.

Searches generally require warrants, but courts have carved out limited categories in which they are not needed. One of these is that police officers are allowed, when they arrest people, to search them and the area immediately surrounding them, as well as some kinds of containers in their possession.

[...]

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this month, by a 4-to-3 vote, that the search violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Rather than seeing a cellphone as a simple closed container, the majority noted that modern cellphones — especially ones that permit Internet access — are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information.”

This is information, the court said, for which people reasonably have a high expectation of privacy, and under established Fourth Amendment principles, police officers must get a search warrant before they can look through call logs or examine other data.

Read Original Article:(Via NYT > Privacy.)

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Twitter Twitter
  • Digg Digg
  • StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Technorati
  • del.icio.us del.icio.us
  • Facebook Facebook
  • Furl Furl
  • LinkedIn LinkedIn
  • Yahoo Yahoo
  • MacRonin's blog
  • Add new comment

Recent blog posts

  • New law review article: "Applying the Fourth Amendment to the Internet: A General Approach"
  • New law review article: "Pervasive Surveillance and the Future of the Fourth Amendment"
  • Immigrants on Trains Near Northern Border Detained
  • Is New York the Next "Papers Please" State? (ACLU)
  • Pirate Bay Documentary in the Works
  • Reading, Writing, and RFID Chips: A Scary Back-to-School Future in California
  • Scam preys on required TweetDeck update
  • Location Sites Experiment to Attract Mainstream Users
  • Hinting That It’s Good to Be Bad
  • Retargeting Ads Follow Surfers to Other Sites
more

Performancing Metrics

Compilation © Copyright 1997-2010 Paul Hardwick, with Web Hosting provided by MacRonin.com.