{"id":5682,"date":"2011-06-21T14:22:08","date_gmt":"2011-06-21T14:22:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-06-21T14:22:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5682","title":{"rendered":"LTN: Does <em>Davis<\/em> bode badly for technology search cases?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/lawtechnologynews\/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202497670270&amp;Supreme_Court_Ruling_on_Searches_May_Extend_to_Mobile_Tech=&amp;src=EMC-Email&amp;et=editorial&amp;bu=LTN&amp;pt=EDD&amp;cn=E-Discovery%20Newsletter%206%2F21%2F2011&amp;kw=Supreme%20Court%20Ruling%20on%20Searches%20May%20Extend%20to%20Mobile%20Tech\">Supreme Court Ruling on Searches May Extend to Mobile Tech<\/a> by Joshua A. Engel in Law Technology News, June 17, 2011:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Supreme Court on Thursday held that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule &#8212; even when the court later overrules the precedent. The case is Davis v. United States.<\/p>\n<p>This case involved a major shift in the law about when police could search a vehicle after the arrest of the driver. In New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 (1981), the Court permitted the police to search the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to arrest of a recent occupants, regardless of whether the arrestee was within reaching distance of the vehicle at the time of the arrest.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>This opinion likely has significant impact in areas &#8212; like searches of emerging technology &#8212; where the rules are undetermined or the courts have issued conflicting opinions. For example, I described conflicting opinions about when the police can search a cell phone incident to an arrest here and here. In these areas, even if a search of an electronic device turns out to be unconstitutional, prosecutors will still be able to use the evidence so long as the police aren&#8217;t violating Fourth Amendment rights in a deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent manner.<\/p>\n<p><em>Read more from Joshua A. Engel on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.eddupdate.com\/\">EDD Update<\/a>, an LTN blog devoted to e-discovery news and analysis.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5682\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}