cell-phone Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Collateral consequences

June 17, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Ontario v. Quon today. Quon is a case about searching pagers and cellphones.

Our clients convicted of child pornography offenses and certain other offenses in which the internet is case related are restricted in computer access post-release. I mention Quon because of an interesting comment at Sentencing Law & Policy.

I recently had to deal with the Federal Probation Service and the Air Force Clemency & Parole Board about a former now paroled client alleged to have improperly used computers to search for employment. Employment is necessary for parole, and most state funded employment offices, and many employers require applicants to use computers to search for a job or to apply for a job. We resolved the case in the client’s favor and parole was not revoked. The parole and FPS rules do allow computer use in limited circumstances related to seeking employment. The rules are bureaucratic and subject to misunderstanding. Basically the rules require a new “permission” to use a computer each time. So going to Home Depot in the AM and Lowes in the PM requires two permissions. So, here is the SL&P comment on an aspect of Quon.

Technical advice to end the year

December 29, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

I follow futurelawyer.com because he has one of the great sites for lawyers like myself who travel with an office-in-the-briefcase. Here is an interesting blog for the end of the year. No this isn’t a gadget or a piece of software. But the “procedure” may come in handy. Hopefully it doesn’t bowl you over with laughing too hard.

Regular readers of this blog know that I have dropped smart phones in various water graves; twice, in the toilet (don’t ask), and once in a swimming pool, and once in Tampa Bay. In each case, I did my best to dry them out, but, alas, they died a terrible death. Now, LifeHacker informs me that I could have dried them in a bowl of rice, which, because of its ability to soak up moisture, can save wet electronics if applied soon enough. Since my accidents, I have been a lot more careful with my smartphones, so I hope I never have to try this one out. However, if it happens to you, keep this one in your pocket just in case.

Testimonial: Rice Resurrects Even the Most Soaked of Gadgets – Cellphones – Lifehacker.

No search of cellphone without warrant?

December 26, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to howappealing.law.com, here is a Ohio State Supreme Court opinion in State v. Smith. The issue is warrantless searches of cell-phones. While this issue may have been raised in a court-martial, I don’t see a relevant military appellate decision. So the issue is apparently an open one for court-martial cases.

Here is a link to a New York Times editorial on the Ohio case.

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck an important blow for privacy rights, ruling that the police need a warrant to search a cellphone. The court rightly recognized that cellphones today are a lot more than just telephones, that they hold a wealth of personal information and that the privacy interest in them is considerable. This was the first such ruling from a state supreme court. It is a model for other courts to follow.