(CA Gov. Jerry) Brown vetoes bill to limit cell phone searches

[alp227]

Source: SF Chronicle

(10-10) 13:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Frustrated by Gov. Jerry Brown's veto, a Bay Area lawmaker says it will be at least another year before he can try again to require police to get a search warrant before looking at the contents of cell phones they seize from people they arrest.

Legislative rules prohibit reintroducing the bill in 2012, the second year of the current two-year session, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said Monday. Despite rebuffs from the governor and the courts, he said, the issue isn't going away.

Leno's SB914 would have largely overturned a state Supreme Court ruling in January that let police open and examine the cell phones of people they arrest without a warrant.

The court majority in the 5-2 decision said people who are taken into custody lose their privacy rights over any items they're carrying. The court cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings from the 1970s upholding searches of cigarette packages and clothing that officers seized during an arrest and examined later without a warrant.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/10/BA3H1LFOQ6.DTL

[frazzled]

1. You love him, you hate him

The moral of the story is: it's hard to govern. You have to make tough decisions and weigh the various pros and cons of every situation.

I'm just kind of laughing, because of all the "yay, Jerry Brown" threads today regarding education. Soon to be followed by "boo, Jerry Brown" posts, regarding civil liberties. 10, 9, 8 ... where's Glen Greenwald?

[alp227]

2. it's sad how presidents/governors won't stand up for civil liberties

post-Patriot act not even Jerry Brown or Barack Obama!

[frazzled]

4. Yes, but if he'd agreed to this

others would be complaining how sad it is that a governor/president won't stand up for victims. I suppose the information on cell phones often leads to the solution of crimes and the arrest of the criminals. I do think there should be a way of getting "instant" warrants (or super quick).

[No Elephants]

10. The standard for governing is not whether some group will complain.

Someone will ALWAYS complain.

In the case of searches, the standard is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, first, and, second, the Constitution of the State of California.

"I do think there should be a way of getting "instant" warrants (or super quick)."

On the federal level, there is. On the federal level, you can even get court approval after the fact. the

Seems the feds prefer going commando anyway. (TERRA! TERRA! makes everything okay with some poeple, apparently.)

There probably is a way to get court approval quickly in California, too, but that is just a guess on my part.

[boppers]

14. A warrant to search a pack of cigarettes?

To check pockets?

A wallet?

A cell phone?

What is the dividing line?

[Dawson Leery]

3. There is a reason why I am registered as "unaffiliated".

[frazzled]

5. Well, that is sort of an abdication of duties as a citizen then, isn't it?

Just because situations aren't always black or white doesn't mean that you don't have to make decisions. I find it totally perplexing when people claim to be unaffiliated because no politicians are perfect.

[Dawson Leery]

6. I support the Democratic party.

You get more attention from BOTH sides when you are registered with a party. The pols want your attention.

[No Elephants]

11. I disagree strongly. Each Party courts Indies.

The only attention I get from my Party are calls and letters asking for donations and, since 2009, the periodic insult. After all, "the Left has nowhere else to go."

[Tempest]

7. No one should ever vote strictly on a party line

I'm registered Independent and have voted for candidates from both parties although I lean far left.

Not every Democrat is worth supporting and there are some Republicans who are.

[Dawson Leery]

8. In Connecticut ,we used to have such Republicans.

They are now a rare breed, if any exist, they do at the local level.

[No Elephants]

13. I've never found a Republican I wanted to vote for. and I was registered unaffiliated until 2004.

[Tempest]

17. You obviously don't live in a conservative area

I live in Kern County where they vote 65% - 70% for the Republican presidential & state wide candidates.

The Democrats that get elected are ultra conservative. They make blue dogs like Nelson look liberal.

I've voted for more moderate Republicans over those Democrats in local elections.

[No Elephants]

12. How does registering as unaffiliated do away with decision making?

In fact, the opposite seems truer.

If you know that are going to vote or Republican, no matter who your Party puts up, you don't have to make any decisions in any election. You don't even have to listen to debates or campaign speeches.

If you are unaffiliated, you have to pay a lot of attention to each candidate before you know for whom to voter.

Which course is a greater abdication of the responsiblities of citizenship I will leave to slicker minds.

[frazzled]

15. Everyone has misunderstood the point I was trying to make

So I obviously am guilty of not making it well.

My comment had to do with the CONTEXT of the poster's assertion (in response to my comment) of why he/she is registered as unaffiliated--namely, Jerry Brown's refusal to remove the ability of police to search an arrested person's cellphone and attendant questions of civil liberties (on which I take no stand at the moment, not knowing all the finer points of the argument). I was commenting on how on so many issues Brown has been good, but for people who disagree with him on this particular issue, the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. (This situation is largely what we see here with Obama as well.)

My point was: Jerry Brown has to stand in contrast to some other potential governor, presumably one from the opposition party (not just some mythical ideal "better" Democrat). One must make a decision overall whether Jerry Brown's plusses outweigh his minuses, whether rejecting him outright for this one "transgression" (which in fact may not be a transgression) is an appropriate thing to do for the overall good of the state. To make a decision to be "unaffiliated" for this reason is to abdicate one's responsibility to make such nuanced choices in favor of--what? I'm not sure. Certainly not to vote for Republicans, who will be worse. And certainly not to vote for some "better" Democrat, who does not and will never exist. No politician will every fully conform to your idea of perfect policy in every area. Governing is hard and involves tradeoffs about what is in the best interest of the citizens as a whole.

The poster's response to the cellphone issue--"that is why I am unaffiliated"--seemed to me to be just a form of running away from the idea of government. I was not meaning to suggest that everyone who is registered as unaffiliated or independent does so for that reason. I'm fine with Independents, but only if they truly are independent--that is to say, vote for people from various parties, not just one. Personally, I haven't voted for a single Republican since I began voting in 1972. So why would I list myself as "unaffiliated"? Petulance with my party would not be an adequate answer.

[No Elephants]

9. It is NOT all that hard to govern by your principles. if you have them, though

it may be a bit scary to govern by your principles if your own re-election is your first priority.


ETA: Seem totally unremakable to me that people would praise Brown after he does something they respect and criticize him after he does the opposite of what they respect?

That's what you do if you have a set of pinciples and standards that you apply consistently to everyone. Otherwise, you are an idolatrous member of a fan club, which seems silly, except for pre-pubescents.

[Chan790]

18. "That's what you do if you have a set of pinciples and standards that you apply consistently..."

:applause:



That's what I never understood...people who think party-line is more important than principle.

[Safetykitten]

16. Oh dear, someone has again been elected that has not met expectations.