Although prevailing winds are changing a bit, was the opinion of many in the law (and supported by the courts) who are invited to view the contents of a cell phone held without the obtaining a warrant. The thought process seems to be that nothing of this person (or near) is a fair game.

EFF filed an amicus curiae brief to the Court of Criminal Appeal against this mentality in the hope of preventing faulty logic state becomes legal precedent Texas. If the EFF is involved began with a cell phone without a warrant of a teenager when he was detained in a county jail in Texas.

Anthony Granville teenager was arrested at his high school to a misdemeanor, and booked into the county jail. All their belongings, including his mobile phone were confiscated and placed in the property room of the prison then locked. Three hours after his arrest, another officer who arrested Granville high school went to the property room and, without a warrant, looked through Granville phone, looking for evidence connected to another unrelated crime .

Fortunately (and correctly), the court suppressed the evidence "recovered" from the phone Granville, indicating that the agent has had time to get a warrant. He also noted the likely reason for the absence of an order - that is "no compelling circumstances" to justify the search for evidence on the cell phone of Granville.

The State appealed to rationalize the actions of the agent with some of the most incredible claims, the second shows a total lack (or not) to understand the amount of information on the average cell phone can hold.

The State appealed to the Court of Appeals of Texas, arguing that Granville had no expectation of privacy in the contents of your cell phone so that he was in prison, noting that the search through the phone was not different from watching a person's clothing when they sign up in prison.

(I guess "research" means "search" the clothes of a person, instead of, say, admiring sewing.)



The Court of Appeal went on trial court in the demolition of the arguments of the State, with its terrible overall comparison.


the Court of Appeal did not agree with the analogy of the government to find the amount of information stored on mobile devices to search for a much more invasive than finding clothes cell phone. amicus EFF takes several holes in the "phone = pants" of the equation of state.
Find best price for : --Granville----Anthony----Texas--