A handout photograph distributed by Syria's national news agency SANA on May 22,2013, show detained men, blindfolded and handcuffed, described by SANA as "terrorists fighters", a term commonly used to describe rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, in Qusair, near Homs.    SANA/Handout via Reuters

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more 

Photo

Devastated by Tornado

A huge tornado tears through an Oklahoma City suburb.  Slideshow 

Photo

The drone wars

The frontlines of America's covert drone program.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

Supreme Court won't review drug case text message search

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Mon Oct 3, 2011 12:03pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a ruling that the police can search text messages from an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without obtaining a warrant.

The justices refused to review the California Supreme Court ruling that upheld the search on the grounds that defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they are carrying when taken into custody.

The Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal by Gregory Diaz, who was convicted on drug charges. His attorneys said Supreme Court intervention was needed to resolve differing lower court rulings on how to apply precedent to warrantless searches of cell phone data.

Diaz in 2007 was arrested, searched and taken to a police station after driving a car in which his passenger sold six pills of the drug Ecstasy during an undercover operation. A small amount of marijuana also was found in his pocket.

The Ventura County Sheriff's Department seized his cell phone and placed it with other evidence. Diaz initially denied any knowledge of the drug transaction.

During a break in the interrogation, an officer looked at the text message folder and discovered a coded message that appeared to refer to the Ecstasy sales. That was about 90 minutes after Diaz had been arrested.

The officer showed the text message to Diaz, who then admitted that he had taken part in the deal. He later pleaded guilty to transportation of a controlled substance and was sentenced to three years of probation.

Diaz appealed, challenging the search as unreasonable and for violating his constitutional rights. A California appeals court and the state Supreme Court both upheld the search as valid under a lawful arrest.

The U.S. Supreme Court already has on its docket a case about privacy rights, the police and modern technology. On November 8, it will hear arguments on whether the police need a warrant to use a global positioning system device to track a suspect's movements.

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
diluded0000 wrote:
Wouldn’t this be an unreasonable search of all the people who sent messages to this phone? Not the drug related messages, but all of the other private messages the the police had to read to find the drug related text. I would argue that these messages should remain unread by law enforcement unless they have a warrant with probable cause that the sender is also suspected of drug dealing.

Why? Say I want to buy a tool or auto part from somebody on Craigslist, which I do all the time. I send a text, “meet me at — so I can buy the item we discussed”. The total stranger I sent the text to gets arrested, and now I have the police reading my text and possibly drawing very wrong and actionable conclusions about me. I say a judge needs to make the call about whether or not there is probable call to read the message I sent, and not just allow law enforcement to do it by default.

Oct 03, 2011 12:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.