Tulsa criminal defense attorney | Cell Phone Privacy

This content was written for Cale Law Office

A hard-working attorney will try to get a charge dismissed without having to go to trial. If you’re Tulsa criminal defense attorney who will work hard for you, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. The initial consultation is free. Attorney Stephen Cale will work with you and develop a defense strategy plan. Attorney Stephen Cale looks for a way to get the charge dismissed.

A 2014 case dealt with the search of a cell phone. The defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) and a second count of possession of a firearm. The Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The judge denied the motion in part accredited in part, suppressing evidence obtained as a result the search of the defendant’s cell phone. State appealed.

After his arrest for possession of a small amount of marijuana, an officer searched the defendant cell phone without his permission. Saw pictures of the defendant holding firearms, cash, and drugs. They use the information from those pictures can a search warrant for the continent phone. The pictures formed the basis for the charge of the firearms count.

The initial issue is whether the defendant has a reasonable dictation pricing the cell phone contents. Stay conceded that defendant has an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, but situs prepared recognize as reasonable. Warrantless searches are unreasonable under the fourth amendment unless they fall under a a few specifically est. and well delineated exceptions.

The state argued that the officers initial search of defense phone was lawful is a search incident to arrest. Search incident to arrest paying for the suspect’s person in any area within his media control where he could reach for weapon or destroy evidence. This doctrine is designed to promote officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.

The US Supreme Court originally considered a search of a cell phone incident to arrest and two cases, and held that without exigent circumstances or other exception, placements the war before searching the data on the cell phone.

State argued that because a selfless container in a search incident to arrest of the containers lawful, the search was lawful. The state relies on a broad reading of the United States vs. Robinson. It argues that any container found on the rest person may be set search incident to arrest, whether or not in my hold a weapon or contraband. In Riley, the US Supreme Court rejected this argument and declined to extend Robinson searches of data on cell phones.

In Riley, the Supreme Court considered the characteristics of cell phones in the context of the general exceptions – officer safety and preservation of evidence. The court first noted that data stored on cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm in arresting officer or to effectuate arrestee’s escape. Officers may examine the phone itself to ensure cannot physically be used as a weapon, but once he also has secure the phone, the data contains is not a threat.

The spring court also rejected the argument that cell phone data to be subject to search incident to arrest or to prevent the destruction of evidence.

While technology concerns regarding remote wiping and data and data encryption, the court noted that these concerns were both the state from and broader than the general focus on defendant in my truck destroy evidence within his reach. Additionally, the court noted that law enforcement officers can season secure phone to prevent the destruction of evidence and that has the means to prevent the destruction of data on cell phones. The Supreme Court advised that any broader concerns regarding the use of data on a cell phone really interest be addressed through establish exceptions to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances.

The rationale for a search incident to arrest is an arrestee’s diminished expectation of privacy, but even with a diminished expectation, with privacy concern is important enough, a warrant may be necessary. The US Supreme Court rejected the states argument that the search of the cell phone data was materially indistinguishable from a search of other physical items. The court stated that it is likely saying a right on horseback is materially indistinguishable from the flight the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together.

The court discussed various verticals uses a cell phones, their mid-storage capacity the present base abuse and highly personal nature of the data stored on each phone. All those differ significantly from physical records and items that any person is likely to carry.

Additionally, the court recognized that on a cell phone and be stored remotely, not on the device itself. Authorizing a warrantless search of data would be a can to finding a keen the pocket and argument of a suspect allow law enforcement to unlock and search the house. The court rejected partial solutions to these concerns in favor of the bright line test so that it would be easy for officers to understand and apply. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale said that you should not consent to search the car, your home or boat your person or yourself. Police cannot search unless having a lawful right to do so.

Whether the police conducted an illegal search is one of the first things that Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale looks for. If the police have conducted an illegal search, it’s possible to have evidence thrown out. If the evidence is substantial enough and is thrown out, a charge can be dismissed.

If you’re looking for quality representation in your criminal case and you want a fighter, call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800. Attorney Stephen Cale will develop a defense strategy plan in writing that you can take with you.

Police screw up all the time. And, attorney Stephen Cale combs the evidence to find the screw ups. He will use police mistakes against the state to fight to get a charge dismissed. You can’t go wrong making a call the Cale law office.