>>>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10455611-38.html
>>>
>>>I was hoping that stuff like this would be going away with the end of the Bush era. Are these bozo's just planning on tossing the Fourth Amendment in the trash or what? geeeze!
>>
>>Bush being out of office isn't the point. His judicial appointees will be on the bench for a LONG time.
>
>It didn't take long to blame this on Bush.
>
> the U.S. Department of Justice "asserted that officers could lawfully seize and search an arrestee's laptop computer as a warrantless search incident to arrest." The Obama Justice Department, in a series of prosecutions including one in Nebraska involving a crack cocaine dealer, has taken the same position about warrantless searches of cell phones
>
>Can you point me to the justice(s) appointed by Bush in the Obama Justice Department responsible for that? If Bush is responsible, please provide the evidence and I recommend writing the author (Declan McCullagh) of that article so he can print a retraction/correction.

The only reason I said anything about Bush is because he didn't feel the need to deal with the courts for wiretaps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

As far as this specific case - what about the 1986 federal law designed to protect the privacy of e-mail messages? Like those on a smartphone for example? You have a 32gig card in yer smartphone that is a HUGE amount of material so the level of intrusion for a search like this isn't like looking though the guys car or something....thus should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, right?