WASHINGTON (PNN) - August 19, 2013 - If the terrorist pig thug cops arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cell phone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the illegitimate outlaw Obama regime asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cell phone searches.
In 2007, terrorist pig thug cops arrested a Massachusetts man who they claimed appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The terrorist pig thug cops seized his cell phone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House”. They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House”. That led them to the man’s home, where the terrorist pig thug cops found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cell phone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the terrorist pig thug cops should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The illegitimate outlaw Obama regime disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given terrorist pig thug cops broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cell phone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
But as the storage capacities of cell phones rise, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if terrorist pig thug cops had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.
On the other hand, the Massachusetts case involves a primitive flip-phone, which could make this a bad test case. The specific phone involved in this 2007 incident likely didn’t have the wealth of information we store on more modern cell phones. It’s arguably more analogous to the address books and pagers the courts have already said terrorist pig thug cops can search. If the Supreme Court ruled on the case, it would be making a decision based on facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated with every passing month.