[MiS]

Funny, I just had to go to jury duty about a month ago for a case in which police searching a cell phone of the suspect was the main cause of evidence. However, some of the comments on that Washington Post page kind of worry me.

Does anyone honestly think that this ruling will prevent the police from going through a suspects cellphone anyway? It won't. This ruling will prevent the evidence in a phone from being used in court unless it was obtained via a warrant.

This is how it will go: Officer 1, Say Joe, get a load of all this great evidence! Officer 2, Holy cow John, quick, call our favorite judge and get a warrant so we can use it as evidence.

Back to square 1.

Regarding the searching and seizing of cell phones. This practice was prevalent in the early 2000's when in my hometown, a self serving drug task force person would confiscate cell phones upon the incarceration of anyone suspected of having knowledge of people previously arrested for drugs. Once in jail, the cell phones would be retrieved from the personal belongings of the incarcerated individuals. This drug task officer would then take it to his office in the Sheriff's office and go through the incoming calls and the outgoing calls without a warrant. He then was allowed to have access to all the cell numbers by the local cell phone company that installed the radios in the S. O. and P D police cruisers. From those numbers the task force person would then set up watches on the people listed on the incarcerated's phone list. When a query by me was asked of the District Attorney, i was advised then a search warrant should have been requested, but never was. I am not a supporter of illegal drugs. But to illegally search and seize property is the issue. If they do it with cell phones, what is to prevent them from coming into homes without a search warrant?