Julian Sanchez points to a decision to amend strange room. Although the courts have been regularly removing amendment 4, and allow things like warrant wiretapping and surveillance of individuals through their phones without a warrant. In this case, the court held that touching a mouse pad, thus having a screen saver mode laptop was a "research" and was the subject of amendment 4. While I am pleased that the courts recognize the importance of Amendment 4, and the need to apply the law to get orders, I'll have a hard time understanding how this is a search for the Amendment 4 th when the other - far more pervasive - the shares are not.

details of the case involving a person who posted on Craigslist a threat to bring a gun to a mall. Police traced the man outside his house, and then there, one of them touched the mouse pad, change the screen saver mode in standby mode for now, to show the information used to arrest the man. As the material seen by the naked eye is not considered a search, the question is whether or not discovered things that were not in sight, and thus constituted a search. I can understand why the court ruled as it did in this case (although I'm a little surprised). I'm just trying to understand how this is not a legal document, but something like scanning the contents of a cell phone during a traffic stop



legal research.
Permalink | Comments | Email this article