EFF Fights Texas' Claims That Searching A Cell Phone Is No Different Than Searching 'A Pair Of Pants'
from the caution:-pants-may-contain-internet-history dept
Although the prevailing winds are now beginning to shift a little, it has been the opinion of many in law enforcement (and backed up by the courts) that they are welcome to search the contents of a detainee's cell phone without obtaining a warrant. The thought process seems to be that anything on that person (or in their immediate vicinity) is fair game.The EFF has filed an amicus brief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opposing this mentality in hopes of preventing the state's flawed logic from becoming legal precedent. The case the EFF is involved with began with a warrantless search of a teenager's cell phone while he was detained at a Texas county jail.
Teenager Anthony Granville was arrested at his high school for a misdemeanor and booked into the county jail. All of his belongings, including his cell phone, were taken from him and placed in the jail's property room while he was locked up. Three hours after his arrest, a different officer than the one who arrested Granville at the high school went into the property room and, without a search warrant, looked through Granville's phone in search of evidence connected to another, unrelated felony.Fortunately (and correctly), the trial court suppressed the evidence "recovered" from Granville's phone, stating that the officer had time to obtain a warrant. It also pointed out the likely reason for the lack of a warrant -- namely, "no exigent circumstance" to justify searching for unrelated evidence on Granville's cell phone.
The state appealed, rationalizing the officer's actions using a couple of rather incredible claims, the second of which shows a complete (or willing) lack of comprehension as to how much information the average cell phone can contain.
The state appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, arguing that Granville had no expectation of privacy in the contents of his cell phone while it was in the jailhouse, noting that looking through the phone was no different than looking at a person's clothes when they are booked into jail.(I would imagine "looking at" means "searching" a person's clothes, rather than, say, admiring the stitching.)
The appeals court followed the trial court in shooting down the state's arguments, along with its generally terrible comparison.
The appellate court disagreed with the government's analogy, finding the amount of information stored on mobile devices make a cell phone search far more invasive than a search of clothing.Despite the count being 0-2, state prosecutors show no willingness to stop swinging, bringing the case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where it will once again pit its lousy justification for Fourth Amendment violations against the EFF, the Texas Civil Rights Project and the ACLU of Texas.
The EFF's amicus brief shoots several holes into the state's "cell phone = pants" equation.
In our amicus brief we explain the government had no excuse for not obtaining a warrant before searching Granville's phone. A person doesn't surrender their expectation of privacy in the contents of their phone once the phone is in the hands of jail officials. Plus none of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement applied. This wasn't a search "incident to arrest "since it took place hours after Granville was arrested, when the phone was out of his control. And it wasn't an "inventory search" because once the phone itself was inventoried and secured by the police, there was no need to inventory the data on the phone. Plus, an inventory search can't be used as a pretext for a clearly investigatory search, which this certainly was.Refining broad search policies and eliminating procedural gaps is a necessity as cell phones move further and further away from being simply portable phones. The amount of personal information contained on the average cell phone, along with the number of cloud-based services accessed through them, can make for a very rewarding fishing trip.
These days, searching a phone under the pretenses stated above isn't much different than an officer letting himself into a detainee's home and rooting around on the home computer. Between social networks and cloud services, much of what's "contained" in a cell phone is accessible from multiple points. Arguing that a cell phone is nothing more than a set of pants pockets is deliberately understating the reality in order to justify skirting the Fourth Amendment. Here's hoping the state goes 0-3.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, eff, mobile phones, searches, texas
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: parasitizing on a dead thread...
1. we are RAPIDLY approaching the point where not just micro-botz, but nano-botz will be capable of numerous surveillance (if not 'direct-action') functions...
2. they will be all but undetectable to normal senses...
3. does that therefore mean since they are unobtrusive, they are beyond the reach of the law/constitution which bars 'unreasonable search and seizures' ? ? ?
4. *besides* the one-way slide which allows more and more 'unreasonable search and seizures', who thinks 'The Law' will not side with Empire and allow any/all micro/nano bot 'searches', since law enforcement doesn't think it is 'unreasonable' at all to send a nano-bot up our cloaca...
step 5. embedded in the Borg Empire...
step 6. Profit Uber Alles ! ! !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I propose that any and all legislation involving differentiating cyber- from non-cyber- also include equal differentiating between how law enforcement is able to handle electronic or cyber-devices.
We can call it the Cyber-Cake and Eat It Too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tablet keyboard was spazzing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Searching the phone can be the same as searching a pair of pants
If they got the phone, opened the battery cover, and removed the battery and SIM, looking for hidden objects, but got no further, it could be considered as very similar to searching a pair of pants and rummaging through its pockets.
The analogy stops working as soon as they bring out the screwdrivers; that would be similar to completely undoing the stitching of the pair of pants, to look for hidden stuff within the fabric.
And the analogy does not work at all for data; normal pairs of pants do not have data or network access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Searching the phone can be the same as searching a pair of pants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Searching the phone can be the same as searching a pair of pants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Searching the phone can be the same as searching a pair of pants
The cyber police dog will probably be an app which sports an animated dog making sniffing noises and followed by "the signal" thus indicating contraband. The whole will be a ruse resulting in much laughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* Paperwork - electronic or paper document designed to contain any and all data gleaned from the accused.
** Feel free to use that sentence as an example of how to use they're, there and their.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such a good idea
Tim, that is such a good idea. If they find keys in the pocket in the detainee's clothing, then they could use it to go into the house and search for data. Afterall, it is no different to looking through pants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We just want to admire the label on the jeans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That standard password screen in an iphone or andriod isn't difficult for them to get around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you uncover plain-sight evidence in the act of an inventory search (intent = making certain there are no hidden weapons and making sure the detainee can recover his/her belongings later), you can act on it, because it was found in a reasonable manner.
If you conduct an investigatory search on someone's phone (intent = finding incriminating evidence) you need a warrant because you need to show cause for invading someone's privacy.
See the difference? Those doctrines exist to create a bright line between public security and individual privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lock everything or post a sign saying 'private' or else you have no right to privacy.
Frack that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your house is left unlocked, the police still need a warrant to search it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
papers
It seems pretty obvious that a the digital information stored in a cell phone should count as "papers" with regards to 4th amendment protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pants
Really, searching a call phone is no different than searching a body cavity. Just routine, for my own protection I'm told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution or tampering with evidence?
However, there have been other courts that have decided against this. Some have even decided that cops can demand your phone password. One of the major issues is that passwords to cloud data are saved on most people's phones, so cops can get access to more stuff than is on the phone itself. (I have problems with them accessing stuff on the phone itself, but the amount of cloud data I have available on my phone is huge).
What if there were an app that allowed you to have 2 passwords. One password simply unlocked the phone. The other password unlocked the phone, but wiped all your login information? Would that be destroying or tampering with evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution or tampering with evidence?
Until/unless the laws about this are made reasonable, I think this is a utility that everyone should have on their phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solution or tampering with evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solution or tampering with evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]