It always seemed clear to me and to most legal professionals that police searching a person's cell phone without a warrant was an illegal act. The June 25, 2014 unanimous US Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California confirms that understanding.
Even though most judges, courts, prosecutors and police understood that, they did those illegal searches for years because there was no "firm ruling" against this type of search, and because there was no penalty to police if they violated citizen's rights. They had no orders to "not search" people's phones, so in the interest of "fighting crime" they went ahead and did it. This is their "good faith exception."
Now it appears that Riley v. California is complicating prosecutions in progress and previous convictions based upon this "illegally obtained evidence" See this article by Kristina Davis in the San Diego Union Tribune: Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com: The article cites a few cases of pretty horrible crimes that were uncovered and prosecuted based upon illegal searches of a suspect's cell phone. I would assume that there are similar situations now all over the US. Yes, in these cases the cell phone searches were keys to prosecution, and I'm sure there were other cases. However how many thousands (or millions across the US) of illegal searches were done by police in cases of stops or arrests for minor offenses (broken tail light) were there when nothing illegal was found? How many times has TSA illegally searched (without a warrant) American's cell phones or laptops when they are returning to the US after a trip abroad? From the news, it appears that the practice was very common, and that the police even would extort passwords from suspects so they could get into phones and online accounts.
It would be appropriate to fine or discipline those who conducted, or directed the illegal cell phone searches prior to the Riley vs California ruling, since it seemed so obvious to everyone (including the Supreme Court) that what they were doing was illegal. However, (per the "good faith exception") they will argue that they were "just doing their job the best way they knew how." However any illegal search AFTER Riley vs California should be an immediate cause for legal prosecution. Any officer doing so should be immediately suspended and prosecuted! I can still see police pulling me over for a broken tail light asking for my phone and passwords. They can say: "Either give me your phone and passwords, or you can sit here on the side of the road and wait a couple of hours until another officer brings a search warrant." -- Or they will say "Do you have something to hide on your phone? If not, give it to me, and you will be quickly on your way!" It is a very awkward situation. This ruling doesn't seem to stop that from happening.
On the other hand, I totally disagree with the concept overturning convictions based upon "illegally obtained" evidence. These suspects were clearly sleazebag criminals and deserve to be convicted and punished. When the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision was made, and police were then suddenly forced to read everyone their rights and, many convictions were overturned where the suspect wasn't properly "Mirandized." . It was clear that the suspect was guilty, but the conviction was reversed as a way to "punish" the police and prosecutors" for violating the citizen's rights. When police, prosecutors, or judges clearly violate citizens rights, there needs to be some other form of sanctions, discipline, or punishment for doing so. --Not letting convicted criminals go free!
This Riley vs California situation is very similar to Miranda in that sense. The arrests, prosecutions and convictions cited in this article for child sex, child pornography etc are heinous crimes and the evidence, while obtained illegally, is still valid evidence of the crime. In these cases, it would be reasonable to think that the police would have had grounds to obtain a legal search warrant, and would have searched the phone(s) anyway, if it weren't for the "good faith exception" they were operating on.
Even though most judges, courts, prosecutors and police understood that, they did those illegal searches for years because there was no "firm ruling" against this type of search, and because there was no penalty to police if they violated citizen's rights. They had no orders to "not search" people's phones, so in the interest of "fighting crime" they went ahead and did it. This is their "good faith exception."
Now it appears that Riley v. California is complicating prosecutions in progress and previous convictions based upon this "illegally obtained evidence" See this article by Kristina Davis in the San Diego Union Tribune: Fates unclear for cellphone search cases | UTSanDiego.com: The article cites a few cases of pretty horrible crimes that were uncovered and prosecuted based upon illegal searches of a suspect's cell phone. I would assume that there are similar situations now all over the US. Yes, in these cases the cell phone searches were keys to prosecution, and I'm sure there were other cases. However how many thousands (or millions across the US) of illegal searches were done by police in cases of stops or arrests for minor offenses (broken tail light) were there when nothing illegal was found? How many times has TSA illegally searched (without a warrant) American's cell phones or laptops when they are returning to the US after a trip abroad? From the news, it appears that the practice was very common, and that the police even would extort passwords from suspects so they could get into phones and online accounts.
It would be appropriate to fine or discipline those who conducted, or directed the illegal cell phone searches prior to the Riley vs California ruling, since it seemed so obvious to everyone (including the Supreme Court) that what they were doing was illegal. However, (per the "good faith exception") they will argue that they were "just doing their job the best way they knew how." However any illegal search AFTER Riley vs California should be an immediate cause for legal prosecution. Any officer doing so should be immediately suspended and prosecuted! I can still see police pulling me over for a broken tail light asking for my phone and passwords. They can say: "Either give me your phone and passwords, or you can sit here on the side of the road and wait a couple of hours until another officer brings a search warrant." -- Or they will say "Do you have something to hide on your phone? If not, give it to me, and you will be quickly on your way!" It is a very awkward situation. This ruling doesn't seem to stop that from happening.
On the other hand, I totally disagree with the concept overturning convictions based upon "illegally obtained" evidence. These suspects were clearly sleazebag criminals and deserve to be convicted and punished. When the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision was made, and police were then suddenly forced to read everyone their rights and, many convictions were overturned where the suspect wasn't properly "Mirandized." . It was clear that the suspect was guilty, but the conviction was reversed as a way to "punish" the police and prosecutors" for violating the citizen's rights. When police, prosecutors, or judges clearly violate citizens rights, there needs to be some other form of sanctions, discipline, or punishment for doing so. --Not letting convicted criminals go free!
This Riley vs California situation is very similar to Miranda in that sense. The arrests, prosecutions and convictions cited in this article for child sex, child pornography etc are heinous crimes and the evidence, while obtained illegally, is still valid evidence of the crime. In these cases, it would be reasonable to think that the police would have had grounds to obtain a legal search warrant, and would have searched the phone(s) anyway, if it weren't for the "good faith exception" they were operating on.
No comments:
Post a Comment