The Atlantic has an interesting story online today about what latitude cops should have to search your cell phone if you're arrested.
The story centers on a case currently being considered by the Oregon Supreme Court. In State vs. Nix, Albany cops in 2007 mined James Nix's cell phone for data without a warrant after arresting him on suspicion of dealing meth.
Public defender Bronson James is arguing the evidence of alleged drug contacts obtained from Nix's cell phone should not be admissible in court. Oral arguments in the case are set to begin May 4.
Here's a portion of a press release James gave to WW and other media outlets about the case in March:
The Supreme Courts of both Ohio and California have faced similar issues, and come down on differing sides of the question. Last month, in People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court determined that no warrant was required. In Ohio v. Smith, the Ohio Supreme Court held the opposite. Oregon will be the third state to consider the question, which may well find its way to the United States Supreme Court.
“With the evolution of technology, our entire lives are carried on our iPhones and Blackberries,” said Bronson James, of JDL Attorneys LLP, Nix’s attorney. “Health records, financial documents, private emails, family pictures, they’re all on that device. It’s our position that before the government expose all of that, a warrant is required.”