Can Police Confiscate Your Smartphone

Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
Points
8
Location
Kentucky
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro, iPhone 5S, iPad Mini Retina
I'm starting this topic just to see your opinions, however, there was a recent Court ruling regarding this and I will provide more details after a time for comments. Let's get some input, what are your thoughts?
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Not without violating section 8 of the Charter (and thus one's constitutional rights) unless there's reasonable (legal/criminal investigation) grounds to do so. I don't see why a smartphone would be any different than any other object of personal property (who know how the law works though?).
 

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
Good news if one is a spy! There is a difference between confiscating and searching your mobile. If the phone itself is supsected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained of course they will.
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
We're you a lawyer in a previous life Harry? That's exactly the kind of distinction that will likely be made. If someone is suspected of a crime and is being arrested/has been arrested it seems the phone can be confiscated but not searched.

The search could be conducted only if there is sufficient probable cause to believe one has committed a crime. Although the standard for that seems remarkably inconsistent here in the USA. At least to a casual observer anyway.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
The search could be conducted only if there is sufficient probable cause to believe one has committed a crime. Although the standard for that seems remarkably inconsistent here in the USA. At least to a casual observer anyway.

Naw, first thing we do is give you a bath making you believe you're drowning, then we bang you around a bit with rolled up newspapers (NY Times Sunday edition), and after that we ask you in a nice way if we can look in your iPhone. And maybe if you cooperate, you won't get a free all expenses paid government trip to Cuba! ;P
 
OP
GrannySueSnaps
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
83
Reaction score
2
Points
8
Location
Kentucky
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook Pro, iPhone 5S, iPad Mini Retina
Politics News: Supreme Court's Decision Bans Search of Cell Phones Without a Warrant | InTheCapital (outdated link removed)

"In a landmark decision on Wednesday morning the Supreme Court ruled in a 8 to 1 decision that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant, even if they are on a person's body at the time of arrest, based on the cases United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California."
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
In a landmark decision on Wednesday morning the Supreme Court ruled in a 8 to 1 decision
A judge voted against this? Does the United States not have laws against unreasonable search and seizure? I ask because this seems like a clear case of "no, you can't randomly confiscate it unless there is reasonable cause."
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
I was just wondering something similar. The Fourth Amendment to the US constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Numerous federal laws have been passed since then to clarify the definition if "unreasonable".That I understand.

What puzzles me is why this had to end up in the Supreme Court and why it wasn't a unanimous decision. There must be some detail I have missed in these cases that makes them far more complicated.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
I was just wondering something similar. The Fourth Amendment to the US constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Numerous federal laws have been passed since then to clarify the definition if "unreasonable".That I understand.

And no one thought before "Miranda" that a suspect had to be read his or her rights when arrested. Hey, that's why we have a Supreme Court.

And since today is the Fourth of July, we can once again celebrate our independence from King George! ;P
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
I had not thought of that specific example. Although. when you look at the essence of the Miranda case, that one floors me as well. Something in my mind nags at me that the two cases are not exactly analogous but I can't put my finger on it at the moment.

My understanding of the "fallout" of that case is that it did not confer new rights on anyone. It merely required that potential suspects be informed of rights they already had. When I read about that decision in school it's another one that seemed self-evident to me. After all, how can someone exercise a right if they don't know they have it.

I've always been fascinated by how much many of the cases which come before SCOTUS are a product of the time in which they occur. I'm thinking here of the contrast between say Plessy v. Ferguson contrasted with Brown v. Board of Education. There is little doubt in my mind that social conditions/expectations played an important part in why both cases ended up in the Supreme Court.
 

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
I've always been fascinated by how much many of the cases which come before SCOTUS are a product of the time in which they occur.

Very true. Right now in 2014 the Supreme Court leans toward the more conservative view of things. However, that can change in a heartbeat (literally). A conservative member of the court passes away and our President nominates and gets confirmation of his choice from the senate. Then the court will likely lean liberal and major decisions (social, moral, etc) will change very quickly.
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
True. As evidenced in part by the number of 5-4 decisions.

Although the court may be more conservative than it has been in the past I'm not sure it's as consistently conservative as some think. I doubt, for example, that a truly conservative court would have jumped through the hoops they did to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
I ask because this seems like a clear case of "no, you can't randomly confiscate it unless there is reasonable cause."

What constitute's "reasonable cause" ?? Where is that line drawn ?
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
25,564
Reaction score
486
Points
83
Location
Blue Mountains NSW Australia
Your Mac's Specs
Silver M1 iMac 512/16/8/8 macOS 11.6
Well Brent in NSW under Section 356A of the Crimes Act, 1900 as amended, 'reasonably suspected'. Different thing I guess to US law and 'reasonable cause'. Guess it all revolves around that word 'reasonable'.
 

Slydude

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
17,596
Reaction score
1,072
Points
113
Location
North Louisiana, USA
Your Mac's Specs
M1 MacMini 16 GB - Ventura, iPhone 14 Pro Max, 2015 iMac 16 GB Monterey
You're right Harry. Some judges seem to have a somewhat broader definition of probable cause than others. Within reason of course. Generally the process involves law enforcement giving the judge an explanation of why they think the individual in question has a high probability of having committed the crime in question.

There are some exceptions to the need for a warrant. One being if the evidence in question is in plain sight while an arrest is being made. Or if the police are there for another legitimate reason. There are other exceptions and I am sure some of our legal types could think of many more.
 
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
295
Points
83
Location
Waiting for a mate . . .
Your Mac's Specs
21" iMac 2.9Ghz 16GB RAM - 10.11.3, iPhone6s & iPad Air 2 - iOS 9.2.1, ATV 4Th Gen tvOS, ATV3
Guess it all revolves around that word 'reasonable'.

Yes 'reasonable' . . . When it comes to subduing a person, we could use 'reasonable' force, and when it came to 'reasonable' it meant, to a point where you use whatever means to take them into custody. If that meant a choke hold, enough to loose consciousness for a few seconds so we could zip tie there hands together, so be it, so 'reasonable' is very very subjective.

Sorry I can't quote any SOP's off the top of my head :)
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
The Fourth Amendment to the US constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.
Then how did that one justice argue that confiscation of personal property wasn't unreasonable? I fear that I'm missing important details about this case (was it about confiscating it once you've been arrested already?).

What constitute's "reasonable cause" ?? Where is that line drawn ?
Here, it's been debated at the Supreme Court in R v. Lifchus (that's more about reasonable doubt but I imagine that some of those principles might apply including presumed innocence and logical connection to evidence).

If that meant a choke hold, enough to loose consciousness for a few seconds so we could zip tie there hands together, so be it, so 'reasonable' is very very subjective.
I don't know about Australia but I'm fairly confident that a choke hold wouldn't fly in any jurisdiction here as reasonable force.
 
Last edited:

chscag

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
65,248
Reaction score
1,833
Points
113
Location
Keller, Texas
Your Mac's Specs
2017 27" iMac, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 8, iPhone 11, iPhone 12 Mini, Numerous iPods, Monterey
I fear that I'm missing important details about this case (was it about confiscating it once you've been arrested already?).

Yes, that part was left out. The individual had already been arrested and the police confiscated his cell phone and found incriminating evidence on it. I don't know the exact details but the evidence was thrown out because the police did not have a warrant to search the cell phone.
 

vansmith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
19,924
Reaction score
559
Points
113
Location
Queensland
Your Mac's Specs
Mini (2014, 2018, 2020), MBA (2020), iPad Pro (2018), iPhone 13 Pro Max, Watch (S6)
Yes, that part was left out. The individual had already been arrested and the police confiscated his cell phone and found incriminating evidence on it. I don't know the exact details but the evidence was thrown out because the police did not have a warrant to search the cell phone.
Well, that makes a lot more sense then. I can see why there may have been judicial dissent and how this isn't so clear cut. Thanks for clarifying!
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top