11 ms·
Precedents are interesting: > Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol agent searched a bag by squeezing it) > Arizona v. Hic
by mehrdadn 6y ago
Precedents are interesting:
> Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol agent searched a bag by squeezing it)
> Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324–25 (1987) (holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it so that the officer could view concealed serial numbers).
The idea seems to be that pushing the power button is what constituted a search, not taking a picture of the lock screen. Presumably if the lock screen was somehow already on at that point (which normally it wouldn't be) then it might be fair game to take a picture without a warrant.
- judge2020 6y agoI wonder how this works with "raise to wake" features modern phones have. If it goes to intent, it would be hard to prove that intent was to search the device.
- threatofrain 6y agoI also wonder if a different legal distinction will be drawn in the level of protection you might receive in fingerprint vs facial recognition auth.
- fiblye 6y agoI think that’d fall under inevitable discovery. Even avoiding trying to look at the phone would reveal its lock screen.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoSince simply moving a phone can turn on a lock screen, police could probably look at it that way, at the time of arrest.
- mehrdadn 6y ago> holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it That seems pretty similar?
- SamReidHughes 6y agoIt’s not. If you’re arresting somebody, you can empty their pockets.
- mehrdadn 6y agoThis is about after that. > Judge Coughenour ruled that the police were within their rights to look at the lock screen at the time of Sam’s arrest, as there are circumstances in which a search can be made at the time of an arrest without a warrant. > Investigators conducting a search later, however, need a warrant, said the judge.
- exmadscientist 6y agoThat is not what the judge ruled (though it is what the article said). The judge actually refused to rule on the police search at time of arrest: Section II.B: > The police’s examination of Mr. Sam’s phone raises different issues because the examination may have been a search incident to arrest or an inventory search—two special circumstances where the Government does not always need a warrant to conduct a search. Unfortunately, the Court cannot decide whether the police needed a warrant because the circumstances surrounding the police’s examination are unclear. > ... > The Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing the circumstances surrounding Office Shin’s and the Tulalip Police Department’s alleged examinations of Mr. Sam’s phone. That briefing should also address the relevant legal standard for searches incident to arrest and/or inventory searches.
- garmaine 6y agoWhat kind of phone does that?
- chrismcb 6y agoThat first one is interesting... I once stopped for a load of pumpkin bread before boarding a plane. I put it into my backpack. The tsa agent saw the buldge and started to punch my backpack! I yelled at him to stop and he said he thought it was a water bottle... Yeah, like it is a good idea to punch something you think might be explosive.
- amscanne 6y agoI’m pretty sure that most TSA employees forgot why water bottles aren’t allowed a long time ago (if they ever knew), and now are just searching for water bottles directly. That’s the consequence of hard and fast rules — people stop using their brains.
- mehrdadn 6y agoYeah, it really feels like that. Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/651/ https://xkcd.com/651/
- remarkEon 6y agoTSA employees are paid for security theatre - not actual security. I don't mean to denigrate these folks too much but ... they're not exactly the kind of people I'd hire to, say, walk my dog. They stand there and pretend they're doing "security" but what they're really doing is bureaucracy and political patronage. Suppose for a moment we wanted to implement the kind of security that TSA pretends to represent. We'd thus deputize them as part of DoD (or DHS) and they'd carry MP5s and have actual training standards, weight standards, quarterly fitness reports, have to get security clearances etc. etc. They'd do drills at a mock airport, and we'd eventually do away with the "checkpoint" style of security at airports that's really just an invitation for a suicide bomber. I once saw a TSA employee at LAX insist on putting a kid's balloon from Disneyland, that was clear and 100% see-through, through the X-ray machine. I watched this and, as I suspected, the TSA agent never even considered that because the balloon was filled with helium it of course wouldn't move through the machine on the conveyor belt and it got stuck. "Checkpoint" indefinitely shut down. Security Theatre, indeed.
- ddingus 6y agoI just wrote a similar thing. It is the action taken and state change at issue here.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]