The California Supreme Court recently decided that police may search the phones of people they've arrested without the need for a warrant. The precedent they followed was based on previous decisions that officers were allowed to search inside of packages that arrestees were carrying. I feel this is a flawed decision. As we've seen in the past the judicial system often has a hard time grappling with technical issues.

The decision is flawed and leaves a lot of ambiguity as to what "searching a mobile phone means." Modern phones are not like a package, though it is true they can be used to store information much like a backpack can carry a notebook. A more apt metaphor is to compare them to keys as they are used much more often to grant access to information that it does not physically contain. If the police arrest you and find the key to your home in your pocket they need a warrant to search your home. With a phone the line is much more blurred. My copy of Angry Birds is stored in the phone's memory, but my email is stored on a server located elsewhere. The Supreme Court's decision doesn't draw a clear line as to what searching a mobile phone means. Does searching a mobile phone mean turning off the communication and limiting the searching the physical phone? Or does it mean you can use all of its capabilities? Such as monitoring remote locations.

I wish the California Supreme Court would have a been a bit more clear in this decision as the ambiguity leaves a lot to the discretion of the police.