Here's what Jeff Fisher said in the Wurie petition:
The issue has now been thoroughly ventilated. Numerous federal
appellate and state supreme court decisions have explored the legal arguments
arising from searching cell phones seized during arrests. Indeed, at least nine
such decisions have already been issued – most with dissenting opinions – and
some dedicating dozens of pages to the issue. See supra Part I.B. (By comparison, when the
Solicitor General recommended, and this Court granted, certiorari in United
States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), involving the propriety of warrantless
GPS tracking, there were only four such opinions on the issue. See Pet. for
Writ of Cert. at 20-23, Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (No. 10-1259).) These courts now openly acknowledge
the increasing division. See, e.g., United States v. Wurie, ___ F.3d ___, 2013
WL 2129119, at *5 (1st Cir. May 17, 2013); United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670
F.3d 803, 805 (7th Cir. 2012); Smallwood v. State, 113 So. 3d 724, 733 n.5
(Fla. 2013); People v. Diaz, Pet. App. 47a n.17 (Cal. 2011). The First Circuit
recently refused to consider the issue en banc, with two judges deeming such a
rehearing pointless and calling instead for this Court to resolve the issue.
United States v. Wurie, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 3869965 (1st Cir. July 29, 2013).
Oh, and the Wurie petition was granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment