????威瑞利還指出，從更基本的層面上看，當(dāng)場(chǎng)搜查可能是警方繞過嫌疑人手機(jī)密保的唯一機(jī)會(huì)。他寫道：“如果一名警員在拘捕現(xiàn)場(chǎng)發(fā)現(xiàn)一部已經(jīng)解鎖的手機(jī)，立即對(duì)這部手機(jī)進(jìn)行搜查可能是他追回、保存重要證據(jù)的唯一機(jī)會(huì)。辯方針對(duì)這個(gè)嚴(yán)重問題也提出了他們的解決方案——比如給每個(gè)警員都配備笨拙的取證設(shè)備，而且這種設(shè)備每一部都價(jià)值好幾千美元——可以說他們的方案完全不切實(shí)際?！?/p>

????在加州法院審理的大衛(wèi)?賴?yán)话钢?，賴?yán)怯?009年8月在駕車行駛的過程中被警方攔下的，原因是警察發(fā)現(xiàn)他的車子的牌照可能過期了。后來那名警員發(fā)現(xiàn)賴?yán)鸟{照已經(jīng)被吊銷了，于是他當(dāng)場(chǎng)扣押了賴?yán)能囎樱瑫r(shí)要求清查車上物品。這名警員在清查過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)，車子的引擎蓋下方綁著兩支槍。于是他以涉嫌夾藏武器罪逮捕了賴?yán)?/p>

????這位警員在當(dāng)場(chǎng)拘捕賴?yán)?、搜查其隨身物品時(shí)從賴?yán)难澴涌诖锼殉隽艘徊咳荢PH-M800 Instinct手機(jī)。在沒有搜查證的情況下，該警員現(xiàn)場(chǎng)翻閱了這部手機(jī)里的通訊錄和短信。結(jié)果他發(fā)現(xiàn)，一般應(yīng)該以“K”開頭的單詞和姓名都被拼寫成了以“CK”開頭，該警員立即意識(shí)到它可能與一個(gè)叫做“Crip Killers”的黑幫有關(guān)，也就是所謂的“血幫”。

????兩個(gè)小時(shí)后，另一名警員在警署對(duì)這部手機(jī)再次進(jìn)行了搜查，這次搜查同樣是在沒有搜查證的情況下進(jìn)行的。這名警員發(fā)現(xiàn)了更多與黑幫有關(guān)的證據(jù)，包括賴?yán)c其他人做黑幫手勢(shì)的照片，以及一些打“街拳”的視頻（“街拳”是有些幫派的一種入會(huì)儀式）。在這些視頻中，可以聽到賴?yán)诤啊白崴值堋敝惖脑?。更重要的是，在手機(jī)的幾張截圖里不僅出現(xiàn)了賴?yán)土韮擅麕团煞肿?，背景中還出現(xiàn)一輛紅色的奧茲莫比爾轎車。這輛車卷入了兩周前的一場(chǎng)涉黑槍擊事件，但它當(dāng)時(shí)從現(xiàn)場(chǎng)逃逸了。后來警方對(duì)從賴?yán)囎右嫔w下方搜出的兩支槍進(jìn)行了彈道檢測(cè)，發(fā)現(xiàn)它們就是槍擊案當(dāng)天在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)開火的槍支。賴?yán)虼吮环ㄔ号刑幹\殺未遂罪，而且在手機(jī)的視頻與截圖的鐵證面前，這起槍擊案被證實(shí)與其他黑幫行徑有關(guān)，賴?yán)男唐谝矎淖罡咂吣晟仙阶畹?5年乃至終身監(jiān)禁。

????聯(lián)邦法院審理的布里馬?武里一案的破獲也涉及警方在無搜查證的情況下搜查嫌疑人手機(jī)的行為。武里是在2007年9月被捕的，他的手機(jī)在法庭筆錄中被記錄為一部“威瑞森LG手機(jī)”。武里之所以被警方拘捕，是因?yàn)橛腥丝匆娝谧约旱能囎油忸^販賣毒品。警方搜查武里的手機(jī)后發(fā)現(xiàn)，他的通話記錄中頻繁出現(xiàn)一個(gè)標(biāo)記為“我的家”的電話號(hào)碼，這個(gè)號(hào)碼的頭像是武里同伙的照片，而這張照片同時(shí)也是武里的手機(jī)背景照片。就這樣警方順藤摸瓜地查到了武里的家——如果不是提前搜查了武里的手機(jī)的話，他肯定不會(huì)把這個(gè)信息透露給警方。警方在獲得搜查證后突襲了武里的住宅，繳獲了可卡因、現(xiàn)金、槍支彈藥等涉案證物。

????在本周二辯論的兩起案件中，唯一直接涉案的設(shè)備就是手機(jī)。由于這兩起案件嫌疑人的拘捕分別發(fā)生在2007年和2009年，當(dāng)時(shí)的手機(jī)在先進(jìn)性上還無法與如今的主流手機(jī)媲美。

????但是各方都清楚，這兩起案件的審理對(duì)將來警方能否搜查、如何搜查嫌疑人的隨身設(shè)備（比如筆記本電腦、平板電腦、U盤甚至是谷歌眼鏡、智能手表等可穿戴設(shè)備）將產(chǎn)生重大影響。

????雖然執(zhí)法部門很可能仍然想繼續(xù)保留在無搜查證的情況下搜查嫌疑人手機(jī)的權(quán)力，但科技的進(jìn)步似乎已經(jīng)使警方的理由站不住腳了。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：樸成奎

????At a more basic level, an immediate search may simply be the officer's only opportunity to circumvent password protections, Verrilli argues. "When an officer finds an unlocked cell phone at the scene of an arrest, searching it immediately may be her only chance to retrieve and preserve essential evidence," he writes. "[The defendants'] proposed solutions to that serious problem -- such as equipping every officer with unwieldy forensic devices that cost several thousand dollars each -- are entirely unrealistic."

????In the California case, David Riley was pulled over in San Diego in August 2009 for expired license plate tags. When the arresting officer discovered that Riley's license was suspended, he started to impound the car, requiring him to inventory its contents. In the course of doing that, he found two guns strapped under the hood. He then placed Riley under arrest for possessing concealed weapons.

????While conducting a search incident to the arrest, the officer took a cellphone, a Samsung SPH-M800 Instinct, from Riley's pants pocket. Without a warrant he began scrolling through Riley's contacts and text messages. He saw that words and names that would ordinarily start with a "K" were spelled with a "CK," which he recognized as a possible gang-related reference to "Crip Killers," i.e., "Bloods."

????Two hours later, during a second warrantless search of the phone at the police station, a second officer found more gang-related evidence, including stills of Riley and others making gang related hand signals, and videos of "street boxing" -- a gang initiation rite -- at which Riley could be heard saying things like, "Get him, Blood." More important, there were photos of Riley and two associates with a red Oldsmobile in the background, a car believed to have served as a getaway car to a gang-related shooting two weeks earlier. Ballistics tests on the guns found under Riley's hood later linked them to the shooting. Riley was charged with, and convicted of, attempted murder, and the fact the shooting had allegedly further gang-related activity -- as proven by videos and stills found on his cellphone -- was used to enhance his sentence from a seven-year maximum to a mandatory minimum term of 15 years to life.

????The federal case, concerning the September 2007 arrest of Brima Wurie, involved a more limited search of a phone, which is identified in the record only as a "Verizon LG." Wurie was arrested after he was observed apparently selling drugs out of his car. Using clues obtained from a search of Wurie's phone -- mainly the fact that his phone log showed frequent calls from a number labeled "my house," together with a photo of Wurie's companion, which served as his phone's screen "wallpaper" -- the officers tracked down Wurie's residence, which he had otherwise refused to reveal to the officers. After getting a search warrant for that residence, officers seized crack cocaine, cash, a firearm, and ammunition.

????Cellphones are the only devices directly involved in the two cases being argued Tuesday, and since the arrests occurred back in 2007 and 2009, the phones are not particularly advanced compared to what are prevalent today.

????Nevertheless, all parties recognize that the cases will shed light on seizures of any device that can be found on someone's person, including tablets, laptops, thumbdrives, and, in the future, Google Glass, say, a smartwatch, or any other wearable computer device.

????Although law enforcement would understandably like to keep the historical rule inviolate, the advance of technology seems to have rendered that option untenable.