SCOTUS Talks Smartphones

Analyzing oral arguments in SCOTUS about smartphone search and seizure. Short version is they appear to be heading towards a split decision and it's too close to call. The conservative side of the court is leaning towards limited warrants with defined parameters concerning what information the police can look at on a person's phone. The problem with that, of course, is the old "who watches the watchers" question. The liberal side of the court is leaning towards the idea that the smartphone now contains vast amounts of personal data and should require a specific warrant for any search at all.

I tend toward the liberal view here. When it comes to establishing legal precedents which define the lines between personal privacy and law enforcement, any doubts should be decided in favor of privacy. It's a logical extension of the innocent-until-proven-otherwise foundation of American jurisprudence. Outside of abstract arguments, however, there is this: the police cannot invade your home and search the hard drive of your personal computer without a warrant. What is a smartphone? It is simply a computer one can carry on one's person, and for most people it contains much of the same data as that PC. A policeman cannot arrest you for drunk driving and then take you to your house and search your computer, so why should he have warrantless access to your smartphone?