http//
February, 2011 ruling out of the 8th Circuit.
I believe this is going to set up the California ruling of People v. Diaz being overrturned.
Fascinating how long it took for the courts to get here.
I am not sure how this would overturn CA v Diaz. In that case, if I understand correctly, is more about if the device, be it cell phone or not, is protected by privacy.
As this comes from U.S. v Kramer, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2367, February 8, 2011, No. 10-1983 it seems that is was used more as a "sentence enhancement". I'm quoting here……….. The District Court reasoned that U.S. sentencing guidelines §2G1.3(b)(3) generally authorizes a two-level enhancement when a "computer" is used in the commission of a crime.
The definition of a "computer" under 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(1) was defined as "an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device…."
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the definition under §1030(e)(1) as being broad and that a "cellular phone might not easily fit within the colloquial definition of a computer", however they are bound, not by the common understanding of the word computer, but by the specific definition set forth in §1030(e)(1). Furthermore, there is nothing in the statutory language that purports to exclude devices because they lack the capability to connect to the Internet. The Court essentially said that it would be up to the Sentencing Commission or Congress to address and correct any unintended or inappropriate application of the statute, and thus concluded that nothing in the language of §1030(e)(1) excludes cellular phones from the definition of "computer".
In this respect you should treat any smart phone as a "computer" for warrant purposes.
Why is it when people cannot understand a technology with which they are dealing revert to the term 'computer'.
As a warrant may require a substantive act of a crime to be in progress, for the purposes of seizure, that the warrant should call for radio signals to be captured as well; that would require radio signals to be called a "computer", too,….presumably for the purposes of convenience.
Clerk Maxwell, Hertz and Marconi et al must be turning in their graves to find a natural science suffering in the hands of 'for the sake of convenience'.