Cal Supreme Court Tyranny

John Seiler:

Recall, anyone? Not of Gov. Jerry Brown — yet.

But of the five California Supreme Court “justices” who voted to revoke your Fourth Amendment right “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Absurdly, the court ruled that, if cops arrest you, they can search not only your person, but everything on your cell phone. The Chronicle reports:

The majority, led by Justice Ming Chin, relied on decisions in the 1970s by the nation’s high court upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without seeking a warrant from a judge.

These “justices” live in California, the world’s high-tech capital, and they don’t know the difference between a pack of cigarettes and a cell phone with more computer power (literally) than was on board the Apollo 11 space capsule that landed men on the moon in 1969.

The dissent:

Monday’s decision allows police “to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person,” said Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, joined in dissent by Justice Carlos Moreno.

So, you’re pulled over for a DUI and taken to the cop shop. A blood test shows you were below the blood-alcohol limit. So they let you go.

But in the meantime, they downloaded info from your cell phone, including sensitive business information. As Wikileaks has shown, it’s difficult to protect information nowadays. And cop property rooms commonly lose confiscated drugs. It’s a lot easier to steal info by loading it onto a thumb drive. So your sensitive info ends up sold on the black market to a business competitor.

Your competitor uses your info to drive you from business. Your company goes broke, unemploying your 1,000 employees. You’re personally bankrupt and go on welfare.

Welcome to the California Supreme Court’s Tyranny 2011.

Jan. 4, 2011


Write a comment
  1. Andrew
    Andrew 5 January, 2011, 20:27

    1. “So you’re pulled over fcor a DUI and taken to the cop shop.” Doesn’t exactly happen that way now, does it? Field sobriety, breathalyzer, bracelets.

    2. How often does a DUI suspect fail the field sobriety, fail the breathalyzer, go to the ‘cop shop’ then pass blood test? Just silly.

    3. You analogy of a police officer reading the contents of a suspects’ cell phone to Wikileaks is insulting and I’m not a cop. Just ridiculous.

    4. If you folks are serious about calling yourselves journalists, you should get serious about your writing.

    Reply this comment
  2. Mike
    Mike 6 January, 2011, 10:11

    Andrew I’m guessing you’re either a cop or a cop wannabe. Whatever.
    While the author used a DUI stop as an example, you do realize that a LEO can, if he/she chooses, “arrest” you and take you into custody for a traffic violation (speeding, stop sign violation,etc. Check it out. Arrest does NOT mean conviction, so you are OK with unwarranted searches just becasue the PD find a way to “arrest” you?
    This ruling gives them the “legal” means to search your Smartphone, PDA, etc, effectively allowing them to search your computer by extension, with no warrant. Many law abiding citizens like myself object to that kind of abuse of the 4th Amendment. We are worried about the dissemination of private, personal information to other LE agencies for no legitimate reason. This court and others, most of which are left leaning, have been allowed to take WAY too much power away from the citizenry under the guise of providing needed “security”.

    Here is a comment I found some time ago that is applicable, in my view to this matter. “The path to a police state is never marked with road signs. It is instead littered with the debris of a hundred little surrenders, little concessions that seemed reasonable at the time.” Read/study history my friend, the Nazi’s didn’t initially seize power by force and it didn’t happen over night. We are seeing a daily loss of constitutional freedoms and it has to stop.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Date set for appeal of landmark Vergara ruling

A state appellate court has scheduled oral arguments for Feb. 25 in the state’s appeal of the trial court ruling

Detroit sends CA another bankruptcy warning

The Stockton and San Bernardino bankruptcies in 2012 were the largest for cities in American history — until Detroit in 2013.

CA Latino lawmakers value careers over Latino students

The recent dissent in California Democrat ranks — in which Asian lawmakers balked at racializing UC admission policies in a