3 ms·
This 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 ar
by mehrdadn 6y ago
This 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.