Upon examining the court’s decision as it relates to cell phone searches incident to arrest, I agree with it. I understand that cell phones contain private information about individuals and they have the rights to hold such information. However, there are situations whereby, it is critical for the police to search one's cell phone, especially when they believe it will provide important evidence against the defendant. I consider the court ruling to be just by prohibiting the police from randomly carrying out a search in one’s cell phone, but rather do it after obtaining a search warrant from a judge. This clause protects the interests of the public, as the police would not be in a position of misusing the legislation by carrying out unnecessary searches in people’s cell phones.
Vehicle and inventory searches are both inspections carried out by the police, especially when they believe a person has broken a particular law. Generally, the police are required to have a search warrant from a charge to carry out both vehicle and inventory searches. However, the two differ in terms of exceptions. For instance, the police are allowed to tow and search a vehicle that they believe may be containing illegal materials. This implies that as opposed to an inventory search that strictly requires a warranty, a vehicle search does not necessarily require one.
In my opinion, I believe the police should not be allowed to carry out a vehicle search without a warranty. This is because such a move will be undermining the people’s privacy. Besides, the police may be tempted to misuse such a provision and end up harassing the public. It will be ideal for them to seek a search warrant before carrying out the inspection.
