Troubling Decision Out Of Washington State

The Washington State Court of Appeals has issued a highly troubling decision which should cause great concern to everyone concerned about their privacy rights when it comes to their smartphone.  The police had arrested Daniel Lee for possession of drugs.  A police officer seized Lee's iPhone and started looking through Lee's text messages.  He noticed a suspicious text message from someone named "Z-Jon."  The officer sent a message to Z-Jon asking if he "needed more" and received a response in slang and agreed to meet up with the officer who was posing as Lee.  That meeting led to the arrest of Jonathan Roden who was eventually convicted of attempted possession of drugs.  Roden appealed his conviction arguing that the Washington Privacy Act requires that the police get consent before intercepting a private communication transmitted by a phone.  The Washington Court of appeals disagreed with Roden and held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a text message sent because it is stored on a phone and can be viewed by anyone.  The majority equated text message with voice messages left on an answering machine which can be overheard by anyone.  The dissent strongly disagreed with the majority and warned that this ruling could put any phone in danger of being searched without a warrant.  So based on this decision, by simply possessing someones phone, a police officer is deemed to have consent to search the phone without anyone's permission and without a warrant.  This ruling throws the 4th Amendment out the door when it comes to your smartphone.  So under the majority's reasoning, any electronic communication that has a traceable electronic trail will not be protected because the mere sending of the communication means that the sender consented to the search.  Highly troubling.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.legaldefenderspc.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295. 

Ohio Supreme Court Issues Ruling On Cell Phones and 4th Amendment

On Tuesday, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that police have to obtain a search warrant before looking through the contents of a suspect's cell phone, unless their safety is at issue.  It looks like this is the first time this issue has ever been addressed by any state high court and has never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The case involves Antwaun Smith who answered his cell phone after he was called by a police informant posing as a drug buyer.  After Smith was arrested the police seized his phone and looked through the call history and found the calls from the informant.  Smith was subsequently charged with possession of drugs and selling drugs.  The Court ruled that the police needed a warrant to search through the phone history on the cell phone and remanded the case back to the trial court for a trial without the illegally obtained call history on the cell phone.

From experience I have seen many cases in which police arrest a defendant and then look through the phone history and find a phone number that links the defendant to a crime.  This case would suggest that any evidence obtained by the warrant less search of the cell phone history would be inadmissible.  It will be interesting to see if this case has any lasting influence and is taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Search of Vehicles

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued a major decision impacting the warrantless search of a vehicle. In the case, Rodney Joseph Gant, had been pulled over in Arizona and arrested for driving with no license. He was handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the squad car. The arresting officers then searched his car and found illegal drugs and charged him with possession of drugs. The trial court allowed the seized drugs into evidence and Grant was convicted of the drug offense. The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and in a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court agreed. The Supreme Court ruled that when a suspect is locked up and secured in the squad car and poses no threat to anyone, the police need a warrant to conduct a search of the vehicle. It seems as if this decision places limits on the police's ability to search a vehicle, especially when the reason for the offense is nothing more serious than a traffic offense. The majority opinion indicated that the police would be justified in searching the vehicle if the passenger compartment is within reach of the subject and the officers had reason to believe that evidence of the crime for which the defendant was being arrested would be found within the vehicle. Unless those factors were present, the Court said that a warrant would be necessary to conduct a search of the vehicle.

This opinion seems to place restrictions on a "Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest." It seems that this decision will mainly affect individuals arrested for traffic offenses.

The case is Arizona v. Gant, 07-542.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Indiana Woman Lights Up Marijuana Cigarette In Front of Trooper

I ran across this funny story this morning. An Indiana State Trooper pulled over a vehicle for a traffic violation. While the Trooper was talking to the driver, the passenger asked the officer if she could have a cigarette. The Trooper gave her permission to have a smoke and she pulled out a cigarette and lit up. The Trooper, apparently smelling something was wrong, seized the cigarette and discovered that it was actually marijuana. The passenger was arrested and charged with possession of drugs.

Some people are just asking for it!

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense lawyers at Legal Defenders, visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.