Funny, I did discuss that very issue with some local officers this morning. They all said they would never go so far as to insist on seeing a cell phone for something so minor as a texting ticket.

If you face an officer who would go that far, there are practical considerations. He is not as well trained or predictable as the officers I spoke with, or the police suspect you of some other crime. In theory he could charge you with obstruction of justice. You could then be subjected to a custodial arrest. At that point, you are looking at legal fees far in excess of the fine for texting.

Under yesterday’s ruling, the policeman still retains the right to seize the cell phone and obtain a search warrant (extreme for something so minor).

Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse …

The view of the Court is that your life may be on the cell phone and almost any search is too intrusive absent a warrant.

Does that mean cops can’t open you wallet and check your drivers license?

First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant.

Once again, can you provide some case-law?

Wurie’s person. The one at issue here was a “flip phone,” a kind of phone that is flipped open for use and that generally has asmaller range of features than a smart phone. Five to ten minutes after arriving at the station, the officers noticedthat the phone was repeatedly receiving calls from a source identified as “my house” on the phone’s external screen. A few minutes later, they opened the phone andsaw a photograph of a woman and a baby set as thephone’s wallpaper. They pressed one button on the phoneto access its call log, then another button to determine the phone number associated with the “my house” label. Theynext used an online phone directory to trace that phone number to an apartment building.

When the officers went to the building, they saw Wurie’s name on a mailbox and observed through a window a woman who resembled the woman in the photograph on Wurie’s phone. They secured the apartment while obtaining a search warrant and, upon later executing the warrant, found and seized 215 grams of crack cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a firearm and ammunition, and cash.
Wurie

they certainly could have protected your letters if they had wanted to

The text of the Fourth Amendment protects papers:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Except at international borders of course. But that’s separate.

Interesting chain of reasoning. And apparently pretty compelling, if all nine of them signed on.