Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday August 28 2017, @05:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the picture-this dept.

Some more good news on the Fourth Amendment front, even if it's somewhat jurisdictionally limited: the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has (sort of) decided [PDF] the Supreme Court's Riley decision isn't just for cellphones. (via FourthAmendment.com)

In this case, the search of a robbery suspect's backpack while he was being questioned yielded a ring, a digital camera, and other items. The police warrantlessly searched the digital phone1, discovering a photo of the suspect next to a firearm later determined to have been stolen. This led to two convictions: one for the stolen property and one for carrying a firearm without a license.

The defendant challenged all of the evidence resulting from the warrantless search of the backpack, but the state got to keep most of what it found, along with the conviction for theft. But it didn't get to keep the firearm conviction, as the court here sees digital cameras to be almost no different than cellphones when it comes to warrantless searches and the Riley decision. From the opinion:

The Commonwealth counters that Riley does not apply because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers, are not analogous to cell phones for Fourth Amendment purposes. We decline to address the constitutionality of the search of the digital camera on Fourth Amendment grounds, but we apply the reasoning in Riley in holding that the search of the camera violated art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights].

[1] [I suspect the author meant digital camera, not digital phone - Ed]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170821/10485338053/state-supreme-court-says-digital-phones-cant-be-searched-without-warrant.shtml

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 28 2017, @08:13PM (#560465)

    Me too. It's just a much easier fight when you don't get (illegally) caught with proof of doing something illegal.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:34AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:34AM (#560730)

    It's not, actually.

    The courts often rejects cases because the person cannot show any harm. Where as this person can show that he was convicted of something through illegally obtained evidence, and thus he has a case.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:34PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:34PM (#560901)

      So ... His file will permanently record the fact that he was clearly doing something illegal, but got away on a technicality. That will be nice and expensive for parties involved, and the next time anything happens in the vicinity, he'll be on the cop's radar.
      Hardly a smart career move.