Cell Phone Privacy bill SB 914

OFF THE WIRE
The original article can be found on SFGate.Com here:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/08/23/BABR1KQFL7.DTL
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tuesday, August 23, 2011 (SF Chronicle)
> Calif. Assembly passes cell-phone privacy bill
> <a class="email fn" href="mailto:mlagos@sfchronicle.com%22%3EMarisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writer</a>
>
>
> Sacramento -- The state Assembly unanimously approved a bill Monday that
> would force law enforcement officers to secure a warrant before they can
> search the contents of a cell phone.
> The measure has changed slightly since it was approved by the state Senate
> last month, so the upper house must weigh in again before the bill heads
> to the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown. If he signs it into law, it would
> overturn a January state Supreme Court ruling that allowed officers to
> search the contents of a cell phone they take from anyone they arrest.
> Monday's 68-0, bipartisan Assembly vote came despite opposition from law
> enforcement groups, who argued that SB914 would hinder police officers as
> they investigate crimes. But supporters including Assemblyman Steve
> Knight, R-Palmdale (Los Angeles County) - a former police officer - said
> recent amendments render that argument moot.
> "This will not interfere with the legitimate needs of police," Knight said
> as he presented the bill Monday. "All established exceptions that
> currently exist will still apply."
> That means police will be able to search a phone without a warrant if they
> believe they need to do so to prevent injuries, stop the destruction of
> evidence or prevent a crime from occurring. The measure was supported by
> civil liberties groups, including the First Amendment Coalition, the
> American Civil Liberties Union and the California Newspaper Publishers
> Association, which co-sponsored the bill.
> Ron Cottingham, president of the largest public safety organization in
> California - the Peace Officers Research Association - said that the
> changes did alleviate some of his group's concerns, but that police still
> oppose the measure.
> "There are circumstances where it's just not practical to get a search
> warrant, no matter how expedited the process is in that county," he said.
> "We still believe that the California Supreme Court was correct, and that
> subsequent to an arrest (searching a cell phone) is appropriate."
> Supporters contend the proposal simply catches state law up with changing
> technologies. Knight noted that "limitless personal data" can be stored on
> smart phones, making a search of those devices "more akin to searching
> one's bedroom or desk at the office."
> The bill's author, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, added that the vote
> proves that "privacy is not a partisan issue in this Legislature."
> "If you are caught with a laptop, they need a warrant. If they come to
> your home for some reason, they can't walk into your bedroom, personal
> office or look at your computer without a warrant," Leno said. "Everything
> inside your phone requires a warrant wherever else it can be found, so why
> should the smart phone be different?" E-mail Marisa Lagos at
> mlagos@sfchronicle.com. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Copyright 2011 SF Chronicle