March 13, 2023 | By Tim Cushing | TechDirt |
In 2015, the Supreme Court finally addressed reality: people were carrying around computers in their pockets capable of accessing, storing, and maintaining far more information than could be expected to be found in their physical houses.
The government sought to compare cell phones to pocket contents or whatever might be found in the trunk of a car during a roadside search. The Supreme Court shut this argument down, pointing to the ubiquity of cell phone use en route to erecting a warrant requirement for cell phone searches.
While there are exceptions, the rule holds true: if cops want to search a cell phone, they need a warrant. But, as the Supreme Court of Georgia points out, not just any warrant will do. The warrant requirement also says specifics are needed. The Fourth Amendment forbids “general warrants,” the sort of thing oft abused by our former landlords, the British government.
And that’s reiterated here, in a decision [PDF] brought to us by FourthAmendment.com. Seeking a warrant? Good. Ignoring the relevant facts and copy-pasting a bunch of boilerplate to obtain this warrant? Well, that’s bad.
Defendant Roceam Wilson was arrested following the killing of Bradly Jordan, a pest control worker. After a brief investigation, officers determined a “black male” driving a teal green “Ford Aerostar van” was the best suspect. After consulting some ALPR (automated license plate reader) data, the cops decided Wilson and his van fit the description. A traffic stop was conducted, Wilson was arrested, and his van was impounded. A warrant was obtained to search the van, which resulted in the seizure of two cell phones.
That’s where the problems begin. An investigator applied for a warrant to perform forensic searches of the recovered phones. The warrant application contained a mix of relevant facts and boilerplate. It also included the assertion that investigators sought to access pretty much everything on the phones under the theory that any and everything recovered would be “evidence” of the alleged crime.
The trial court, after a challenge by Wilson, examined the warrant applications and found that they did not have enough particularity to be valid and ruled the evidence obtained from the phones should be suppressed. The state appealed.
Too bad, says the Georgia Supreme Court. These warrants were “general” in the worst and historical sense of the word. Nothing limited the search and investigators’ speculation that searching everything would result in finding evidence linking Wilson to the crime is exactly the sort of the thing the Fourth Amendment prohibits. Of all things, the state decided the boilerplate copypasta would relocate the warrant to its new home in Constitutional Land. The court disagrees…
Continue reading HERE.
