Cell phones, privacy & the 4th Amendment

The introduction of new technology challenges the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 guidelines in Katz v. U.S. that the 4th Amendment protects a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy."  What is a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone contents, such as stored numbers or text messages?  What about a person's location, now trackable through GPS devices embedded within cell phones, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in location?  These are, as of yet, unanswered questions which the U.S. Supreme Court will likely be required to confront in the near future.  In U.S. v. Jones (2011) the U.S. Supreme Court only ventured minimally into this area without committing itself to a definitive stance and reverting back to 18th century trespassory logic to resolve a 4th Amendment claim.  Always slow to respond to technology the Court will have to one day consolidate the varying federal and state court treatments of search issues surrounding cell phones and other forms of portable (and intrusive) technology.  The attached article discusses some of the different results from U.S. courts when it comes to cell phone searches.
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5907286-Cell-phones-privacy-and-the-Fourth-Amendment/

Disclosure of media information in officer involved shootings

How a police agency disseminates information in the aftermath of an officer involved shooting (OIS) can have repercussions long after the incident.  A proper balance must be struck between the public and the media's right to know and the protection of the release of information in an ongoing investigation.  Most police agencies are guilty of either releasing either too much information or too little information after an OIS.  The former situation occurred this past May when New York State Police command staff failed to adequately control the release of information after a State Trooper shot and killed an armed perpetrator who attacked the trooper responding to a home invasion.  The subsequent media coverage did not give an adequate account of the trooper's response and failed to explain the relevant state law involved in such deadly physical force situations.  There was a further lack of discipline among New York State Police uniform and investigative command staff in the release of information resulting in not one media contact and official police version of the events leading up to the shooting but at least three independent and variant source quotes.  But worse of all was the inexplicable inability of the Troop K Commander to express to the media and the public during the extensive coverage of the incident how lucky the involved troopers were to survive the incident and how their extensive training benefitted them and the victim homeowners.  In a time when ambush attacks on our nation's police officers are becoming all too common the very blunt official State Police responses that a grand jury investigation would determine the lawfulness of the trooper's actions was an ambush of a different variety.  Unfortunately with shrinking department budgets across the U.S. many police agencies have done away with the position of public information officer resulting in some unfortunate media relations between police brass and reporters.  Risk avoidance and management doesn't end after the critical incident has passed, continued vigilance in the aftermath of an incident, even in something as seemingly benign as press releases and media contact, must be maitained.  The following article provides some further guidelines:  

http://www.policeone.com/media-relations/articles/5814509-Disclosure-of-information-in-the-aftermath-of-an-officer-involved-shooting/

U.S. Supreme Court on governmental immunity

The U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in 3 cases from February to April 2012 dealing with the extent of governmental immunity.  A fourth decision on governmental immunity was released this past week in the case of Reichle v. Howards. While the linked article went to the editor prior to the release of the USSC decision I will review the Court's decision in a separate posting. http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/5603451-US-Supreme-Court-examines-scope-of-governmental-immunity/

Indiana's "right to resist" law

Indiana Governor Daniels recently signed legislation passed by both the state Senate and House providing citizens the "right to resist" unlawful law enforcement entry into the home.  Naturally, Indiana law enforcement has been vocal in its opposition to the law.  There are several flaws with the law, not the least of which is the potential increase for violence against law enforcement.  The creation of this statutory justification leaves the possibility of the type of tragic consequences we have witnessed with similar themed legislation such as Florida's "stand your ground" law.
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5326619-Can-the-right-to-resist-become-a-license-to-kill/