Re: California opts out of 4th Amendment

[Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Chris Boyd <cboyd () gizmopartners com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> > LEAs have some nifty tools to get around that. ;-)
>
> I'd have an issue with that, since they are going beyond a casual examination of the device.
Ohio agrees with you.

    The Supreme Courts of California and Ohio have come down on
    opposite sides of the question of whether police need a warrant
    to search an arrested person’s cellphone.
    ...

    Ohio’s court, on the other hand, ruled in December 2009 that a
    cell phone is more like a laptop, holding vast amounts of personal
    information and thus subject to greater privacy protections —
    namely, a warrant for searching it.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/01/04/why-your-cell-phone-is-more-private-in-ohio-than-in-california/

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.