DuMont replied that people make a choice — they "choose" when they carry their cellphones with them — and thus they should have "no expectation of privacy" if they are arrested.
Kagan, incredulous: "Are you saying one has to keep a cellphone at home to have an expectation of privacy?"
I don't really know what else I can even add to this one. The absurdity of this logic just defies all understanding. Its as if DuMont isn't even pretending to try and make an argument that a 5th grader could take apart like a lego kit.
I'm actually sympathetic to the needs of law enforcement but I just don't feel that they need this ability. If they have already pulled over an individual, you've got enough to probably hold them until the detectives can get a warrant to search them electronically or to take a deeper look at their physical property. There is no credible way an officer is going to be able to look at a cell phone in enough detail unless the suspect is already in custody to be able to be tipped off that they are in danger.
Dreeben didn't offer examples, but predicted an "arms race" between cops and criminals in the future over such technology.
The police have already lost this war. Teenagers figured it out a couple years ago when they started using apps that keep information around for only a limited amount of time. Don't think that criminals are unaware when your kids are not.
Subscribe to High Gravity Consulting
Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox