http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/03/BA5N1H3G12.DTL&tsp=1I guess it's time to look into phones with key-locks, that don't have an OEM override code. And encrypted SD cards. And so on.
Not that I live a life that routinely has me at cross odds with the po-po. But still, I disagree with the ruling.
Keep that in mind when traveling with iPads and laptops and such devices. Evidently the CA supreme court thinks that anything in your custody (car? lockbox in a car? motor home? laptop? sealed mail?) is subject to search/seizure upon arrest.
The digital implications are frustrating. Things stored on your cell phone can include:
-Cookies or stored credentials for email logins and chat forums.
-Bank access credentials.
-Digital transmission codes to unlock/lock/start your car.
-Perfectly legal yet potentially embarrassing or blackmail-able information such as nude photos/videos or evidence of trysts.
I think that, once a suspect is in custody, there is no exigency or urgency in a search that justifies a search of a suspect's digital information without a court-issued warrant. The only exceptions to such a situation might be a kidnapping or hostage situation, where the suspect is liaising with unknown entities and the cell phone or portable computer is a communications link. That would justify exigency or urgency IMO.
This becomes carte blanche to take a guy who does one completely unrelated thing (perhaps carries a pocket knife with too long of a blade into the state of CA from another State, for example) and then gets arrested... and then tear his life apart and arrest/charge him for purchasing the services of a prostitute at Mustang Ranch in Reno NV, by looking over his credit card receipts.
A means to stack more (unrelated and probably victimless) charges onto the initial charges.