|
|
|
|
|
If you support our efforts at spreading the word of God and finding solutions please consider making a one time gift or a $3 a month gift by clicking one of the buttons below. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Listen to internet radio with Nsearch Radio on Blog Talk Radio
|
|
|
 |
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest.
The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person’s mobile phone — which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons’ e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled.
Police across the country are given wide latitude to search persons incident to an arrest based on the premise of officer safety. Now the nation’s states are beginning to grapple with the warrantless searches of mobile phones done at the time of an arrest.
Brown’s veto message abdicated responsibility for protecting the rights of Californians and ignored calls from civil liberties groups and this publication to sign the bill — saying only that the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about. He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message, he also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not.
Instead, he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week.
“The courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizure protections,” the governor wrote.
Because of that January ruling from the state’s high court, the California Legislature passed legislation to undo it — meaning Brown is taking the side of the Supreme Court’s seven justices instead of the state Legislature. The Assembly approved the bill 70-0 and the state Senate, 32-4.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), was flummoxed by Brown’s action. “It was a curious veto message suggesting that the courts could resolve this more effectively than the state Legislature,” he said in a telephone interview.
Under California statehouse rules, neither Leno nor any other lawmaker may introduce the legislation for at least a year.
Orin Kerr, one of the nation’s leading Fourth Amendment experts, said Brown should have backed the state’s Legislature. “I think Governor Brown has it exactly backwards. It is very difficult for courts to decide Fourth Amendment cases involving developing technologies like cellphones,” he said.
In 2007, there were 332,000 felony arrests in California alone — a third of which did not result in conviction.
Brown’s veto also shores up support with police unions and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a police union that opposed the legislation and recently donated $38,900 to Brown’s campaign coffers. “Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation and protect the citizens of California,” the association said in a message.
That support would be key if Brown decides to seek a second term.
In the last year alone, at least seven police unions donated more than $12,900 each to Brown. Those unions, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, had given Brown more than $160,000 in combined contributions.
Photo: DonkeyHotey/Flickr
Solve This Puzzle or You'll Be Keelhauled 1 day ago
Apple's Biogas Fuel Cell Plant Could Go Live By June 10 hours ago
Rainbow Brain Map Reveals Grid-Like Pattern 2 days ago
The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) 2 weeks ago
How Forensics Claims Facebook Ownership Contract is 'Forged' 4 days ago
David Kravets is a senior staff writer for Wired.com and founder of the fake news site TheYellowDailyNews.com. He's a dad of two boys and has been a reporter since the manual typewriter days.
Follow @dmkravets and @ThreatLevel on Twitter.
Ok....READ AGAIN.....
We are NO LONGER governed by the Constitution. Do you REALLY need proof of this?
NOBODY has rights and freedoms they aren't willing to defend and die for. Apparently the overwhelming majoriy of our nation no longer cares. If you really need evidence that we are no longer governed by the Constitution, please let the mighty Boa know. There IS an upside to this. The government has broken their contract with us. Thus WE are under no obligation to abide. In fact, to do so makes us subjects of tyranny. It is past time to throw off the shackles.
It seems to be so.
I was just thinking: When was the last time that the U.S. Constitution had any bearing whatsoever in the descisions of elected politicians?
They are mostly all a bunch of banana republic wanna-be's: Legislate yer money away from you so they can pay for their mentally-challenged daughters braces.
After all, this is important for the well being of the "State". God forbid we have any ugly spawn from a politician. (Not to mention there electric bills and bar tabs).
Oh well. It''s to early in the A.M. to be getting a bunch in my panties.
What goes around comes around. Ask Jobs.
Of course he denies freedom and liberty, he's a leftard.
You know the Supreme Court that weighed in on this before the governor? 6 out of 7 appointed by Republicans. You know the legislature, representing the people of California? Overwhelmingly supported the bill to protect phones from search. Are you actually looking at the facts, or just jumping to conclusions to fit your pre-existing notions? Ad hominem attacks, the cherry on top.
Sorry but Republicans in California, with a few exceptions, are RINO's. RINO's are no better than dumbocrats in attempting to abridge our Constitutional freedoms.
If only they would take a stand and protect our freedoms...like W did.
As long as you idiots continue to blame either political party you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
The fact is, the DINOs in the Democratic Party and the Republicans have merged into the Democratic-Republican Party, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilded Fascist Elite, Ltd., a Bilderberg Production.
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHO YOU ARE TOLD TO VOTE FOR.
Yeah cuz W definitely didn't rape the constitution and give it internal bleeding after enacting the Patriot Act...
If they supported the bill that protected phones from warrant less searches than that's being FOR liberty. Is your head on straight?
Read Methadras' original post, then read mine very carefully.
The Supreme Court never addressed this issue
Warrants are still mandatory under the Patriot Act provisions approved by the Supreme Court.
True, but warrants are not mandatory for the surveillance of "internet communications" under the Patriot Act, so while the gubmint can't search your phone without a warrant, they can tap your calls, mine your email, etc. as mush as they want because the way the Patriot Act was written, "internet communications" encompasses all messages sent using internet protocols, which, as we all know these days, is everything.
"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Pogo
not at all true - First, you must set off specific 'hot words.' the nature of these communications must be examined, and further observation and prosecution must be accompanied by a retroactive warrant from a judge within 30 days
To be specific, I was referring to the California Supreme Court. They issued a ruling on it in February of this year. The petition for the US Supreme Court to take it up was denied. In other words, the US Supreme Court did not see any reason to take another look at it.
This seems to escape people; I don't know why - it's really very simple. Denying Cert means NOTHING - the court has EXPLICITLY NO OPINION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. It means that, of the tens of thousands of cases each year that are referred to SCOTUS, they can only practically handle a few dozen, so they have to pick and choose.
It doesn't mean that "the US Supreme Court did not see any reason to take another look at it"; it means that there were many other cases that were MORE IMPORTANT than this (in the eyes of the Court), and this one for whatever reason had to be part of the overwhelming majority of cases that are never heard.
It is NOT A JUDGEMENT, it is very definitely a NON-JUDGEMENT. Perhaps the issue will come up in a future SCOTUS session; perhaps not - but no conclusion can be drawn from denial of Cert. Period.
It means nothing, legally.
Practically, it means hard-encrypt your portable electronic devices. Ideally, set them to self-destruct after so many failed attempts (like Blackberrys do inherently). You are on your own people; act like it and accept it.
Really? Last time I checked it was the conservatives that tap danced all over the Constitution with the Patriot Act.
hate to tell you but W never had Congress in his pocket---the DEMS voted that in go look it up
the right tends to be the anti-personal-liberty wing nowdays, so long as it's to "keep us safe"....
Speak for yourself, comrade. Wasn't the left in power when they BBQ'd those folks down in Waco? Where were their personal liberty's and due process? I guess dead men tell no tales.
I'm libertarian, so I don't fit in either category. my observation is that both parties are the same now. they both speak of personal liberties, but then stomp all over them.
While I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, I would prefer you call Gov. Brown and tell him directly.
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160
Fuck hope and change, freedom and liberty in 2012!!
Real Conservative Ideal's are what pay all the bills. Government creates zero wealth. Actually negative wealth is what the government creates. Believing in government is akin to Santa clause. When you finally grow up you come to understand where money and wealth really comes from. It's productivity and what you dig up and produce with your hands. It's not some paper with green printing on it. The answer is staring you in the face yet the left wing politicians blow some smoke and it evades you again and again.....
How DARE you compare this marxist, renegade government to a kind old guy like Saint Nick?
SHAME on you.....
Yeah, right. The government had nothing to do with the internet, areospace or funding education which businesses use to make money. It was all rugged individuals using their own money and research. When Steve Jobs invented the Macbook Pro, he rediscovered the properties of electricity and worked his way up to the integrated circuit and beyond because he doesn't rely on other people or the government for ANYTHING.
The internet was created entirely by government funding. Are you arguing (on the internet) that the internet has created no wealth?
the internet was created so that government would have a continuity of operations. The moneys that paid for it's development and implementation came out of taxpayers pockets (yours and mine).
Uh, no. The Internet was created so that institutions working on government research projects could communicate information relative to said projects. Before it was the internet, it was DARPAnet.
Yes it was Russell, however the ulterior motive was decentralization and being able to route messages around cities that were nuked off the map and for command and control. Providing the infant system to the education community for them to clean it up and make it into a usable product.
Oddly enough DSA and .mil have gone off the decentralization path and onto everything controlled at the top. This will bite them in the ass later.
But government HAS no money. It must necessarily take it from its citizens in the form of taxes. Hence govt. funding is actually citizen funding.
But I wouldn't argue that it creates ZERO wealth. They're just quite inefficient at creating wealth.
Spot on.
If you are not a socialist in your youth you have no heart, but if you are not a conservative as an adult, you have no brain.
Spoken like a true useful idiot. Any other slurs and attacks you want to show off as an indication of your bankrupt and poisonous ideology, leftard?
ah the calm response from the left. And defending the stripping of the constitution.
You my friend, are the true faggot bagger. So vile and quick to judge. But you go ahead and hand over your life and information when you are arrested for ANYTHING!!.
So, Frank, you agree with warrantless cell phone searches?
Seig Heil.
I dare you to spit on my you hepatitus HIV piece of garbage.
Both Marino's and Foster's comments are crude and disgusting!!! Grow up and act in a civilized manner.
Oooooh, are you "OFFFFFENDED"? I'm sure Logans comment: "you choose to deny the very foundations of this country - liberty and freedom." probably offended you the most.
You don't have to be an a$$... But i guess that's what dim's do best
Speaking, I'm sure, for all of California, thanks, but we collectively we pass on your offer. Perhaps you could spend some quality time with your boyfriend/girlfriend.
I am, of course, assuming that you have a **** to **** and the b**** to go with it in the first place. I am inclined to doubt it. Anybody named Logan...well, it's difficult to know.
And while you're at it, you might want to take some lessons on how not to be such a crude, vulgar pant load. Such class-less vulgarity is usually associated with liberals.
So. They can search your phone without a warrant, but they're forbidden from asking the immigration status of a likely illegal if if they're arrested for committing a crime.
The criminal is the victim, and YOU are the criminal instead, citizen. To those of you who are still in CA...why?
Your rights are being stripped. Your income is taken and given to people who contribute nothing, for votes. Your infrastructure is crumbling. Your once-shining economy has been brought to its knees by bad government.
Why haven't you left yet?
Governor Moonbeam is a moron. He simply picks and chooses which sections of the Constitution and Federal Law that he wants to respect.
For instance, he thinks that 17 yr olds can't make a decision on whether or not to go to a tanning booth. At the same time, he thinks that 12 yr olds are old enough to have abortions and "planning" counseling without their parents even knowing about it.
Yeah...this hippie is a moron.
Job... I've got a good one... I'm looking for something in a free state and YES I will pay to move myself. So as soon as something opens up in a FREE State I'll be packed and outta this shithole.
Kalifornia is long dead and gone. Let the Libs have it, they ruined it so let them fix it. Get the hell out of Kalifornia and Bank of America.
Andrew, I hear New Hampshire is the freest state in the nation. Do some research on it.. I'd move there in a heartbeat if I could, but family has me tied up here in MN... almost as bad as CA.
CORRECTION: NH was the freest, prior to the state government we just had that consisted of a majority of women and Democrats. Now NH is just as much of a nanny-state as the rest of this formerly free, baby-boomer ruined country.
Who taught the baby boomers to think this way? I was hoping they would have all gone to hell by now...
That's your momma you're talking about. Remember, we used to be you!
The State has its govt, and the Towns have theirs. Not much of State regulation filters down to the personal level.
When you go, make sure you don't act like so many fleeing Californians who continue voting the same way as they did when they lived in CA. Voting for the libs is what got you into the mess. The reason these other states are so attractive to you is because they don't have libs running the business.
Many southern states (east of Texas) are Right to Work states, more freedom, less taxes.
Yes, of course, didn’t mean to leave the Great State of Texas out.
You have said it all in SPADES!!! The sheeple of california have this coming, they refuse to even protect themselves, for lack of courage goes our republic. Good work Kalifornia!!!
"...but they're forbidden from asking the immigration status of a likely illegal..." Yes, they need to bring in their majority voting base to secure their reign of the Titanic Kalifornia.
Cause I can't sell my house, and if I abandon it I can't get a mortgage to buy another one.
Wired.com © 2012 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this Site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (effective 3/21/12) and Privacy Policy (effective 3/21/12). Your California Privacy Rights.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.
