Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Lock Your Phone! 4th Amendment?

California trampling on Rights!

Wired suggests that Brown is catering to police unions, a theory that might also help explain why he signed a ban on the open carrying of (unloaded) guns. In this case, however, almost the entire state legislature, including politicians from across the political spectrum, thought Californians deserved more privacy protection than the state Supreme Court was willing to recognize. And since the two main justifications for allowing police to search arrestees without a warrant are to find weapons and to prevent the destruction of evidence, neither of which applied in Diaz, the legislature's reading of the law seems more plausible as well as more protective of civil liberties.
My phone has a lock which activates after 30 seconds of none use. It is a PITA at times, but I now love the fact that it does that! I wouldn't give them my code if they paid me.  It is my personal info, no one else's.


The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, person's home (including its curtilage) or personal property without a warrant. A seizure of property occurs when there is meaningful interference by the government with an individual's possessory interests,[22] such as when police officers take personal property away from an owner to use as evidence. The Amendment also protects against unreasonable seizure of their persons, including a brief detention.[23]
A seizure does not occur just because the government questions an individual in a public place. The exclusionary rule would not bar voluntary answers to such questions from being offered into evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. The person is not being seized if his freedom of movement is not restrained. The government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds, with few exceptions. His refusal to listen or answer does not by itself furnish such grounds.[26]
A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.[26] As long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required, the courts will usually consider the police contact to be a "citizen encounter" which falls outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment.[27] If a person remains free to disregard questioning by the government, there has been no intrusion upon the person's liberty or privacy under the Fourth Amendment — there has been no seizure.[26]

2 comments:

  1. Excellent point! I have mine locked too!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seems like a simple solution!!

    ReplyDelete