Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.
In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.
The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person. ”
The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.
Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.
For:
The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, Calif., note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who [the arrested people] were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime, ” Detective Chris Grider told Bakersfield’s 23ABC.
Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty, ” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.
Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.
Against:
Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have. .. pictures in there, like of those of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also, ” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.
San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone. ”
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that police officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone. .. merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person, ” she says.
What is the best title for this article?
Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.
In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.
The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person. ”
The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.
Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.
For:
The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, Calif., note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who [the arrested people] were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime, ” Detective Chris Grider told Bakersfield’s 23ABC.
Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty, ” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.
Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.
Against:
Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have. .. pictures in there, like of those of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also, ” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.
San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone. ”
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that police officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone. .. merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person, ” she says.
Based on your understanding of the article, what does the Fourth Amendment protect the people against?
Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.
In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.
The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person. ”
The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.
Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.
For:
The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, Calif., note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who [the arrested people] were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime, ” Detective Chris Grider told Bakersfield’s 23ABC.
Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty, ” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.
Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.
Against:
Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have. .. pictures in there, like of those of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also, ” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.
San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone. ”
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that police officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone. .. merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person, ” she says.
What was the California Supreme Court's decision on Diaz's appeal?
Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.
In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.
The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person. ”
The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.
Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.
For:
The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, Calif., note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who [the arrested people] were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime, ” Detective Chris Grider told Bakersfield’s 23ABC.
Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty, ” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.
Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.
Against:
Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have. .. pictures in there, like of those of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also, ” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.
San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone. ”
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that police officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone. .. merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person, ” she says.
Under what circumstances do some people consider it legal to search through someone's cellphone?
A
When the police officers say so.
B
When the arrestee has one.
C
When there is reasonable evidence against that person.
D
When more than one people are involved in the crime.
Police officers in California have a new way to fight crime. If they arrest someone who is carrying a cell phone, officers can dig through the phone’s content, including text messages, voice mails, e-mails, calendars, and photos.
In a 5-2 ruling, the California Supreme Court stated in December 2011 that police officers are allowed to “open and examine what they find” on an arrested person, without a warrant. A warrant is permission from a judge based on reasonable suspicion.
The decision came about as a result of a 2007 case, People v. Diaz. Sheriffs in California’s Ventura County arrested Gregory Diaz, saying they saw him participate in a drug deal. The sheriffs took Diaz’s cell phone from his pocket and scrolled through the text messages. They found one linking Diaz to the sale. Diaz was convicted. Later, however, he appealed the charges. He said that phone snooping violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The California Supreme Court’s verdict upheld Diaz’s conviction. The court stated that, based on past rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court, police can indeed look through anything “immediately associated with a person. ”
The two judges who voted against the verdict argued that cell phone searches are an invasion of privacy. They noted that smart phones can contain a wide variety of information about a person.
Here are the arguments from people on both ends of the call.
For:
The police need help keeping the streets safe, say supporters of cell phone searches. Officers in Shafter, Calif., note that the policy has already been helpful. “We were able to establish who [the arrested people] were in contact with. It helped us to find who may also be involved in that crime, ” Detective Chris Grider told Bakersfield’s 23ABC.
Some people also believe that the policy will deter people from committing crimes. “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty, ” California resident Chris Eddy told San Diego 6 News.
Furthermore, supporters of the ruling say it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. If you’ve already been arrested with reasonable evidence, they say, then it is fair for the police to search through anything on you.
Against:
Stop snooping through smart phones, argue opponents of the new ruling. “People could have. .. pictures in there, like of those of their girlfriends, that they don’t want somebody else to see, and it would be an invasion of privacy not only for them, but the other person also, ” California resident Valinten Perez told 23ABC.
San Diego resident Jim Tharayil added that he thinks the policy could be abused. He told San Diego 6 News that he can imagine police officers “using something else to pull you over and then using this to look through your cell phone. ”
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, one of the judges who opposed the decision, says that police officers should have to obtain a warrant. It is unfair of police officers to “rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone. .. merely because the device was taken from an arrestee’s person, ” she says.
Based on the context, what is the meaning of "abused"?
