US v Wurie has got us worried

          What should have been a pretty ordinary trial for a Massachusetts drug dealer has surprisingly made it all the way to the Supreme Court recently. The 2007 arrest of Brima Wurie has been called into question based on an officer's use of Wurie's cell phone during the investigation. You can check on the details of the case on this official-ish SCOTUS blog.
          The ruling of local courts was that a cell phone is similar to a wallet in terms of protection under the Fourth Amendment from 'unlawful search and seizure'. Like a wallet, your phone will likely give an investigator some pretty juicy clues about you, like who you are (and if you can drive), where you live, who you know, how much cash you have, etc. And since wallets are certainly okie-dokie for the police to root around in, it follows suit that your phone is next.
         That's all it is really, I think folks have been caught up in the 'constitutionality' smokescreen Wurie's wily lawyers have concocted. The reality is that the dude got arrested for selling drug, and after refusing to reveal his address, he went to jail. No big thing, happens all the time, but while Wurie was in holding, his phone rang. The attending officer saw that the call was coming from a contact labeled 'My House' then checked the contact for a physical address. More drugs and a weapon were later found at the residence. That sounds like some premium police work to me, no breach of our forefather's intent here, donuts for everybody!
         I think most of us are already aware of most of the hazards of irresponsible cellphone usage, but it looks like this might be another one to watch out for. I know none of you would ever dream of being involved in any less than legal activities, but if you ever did it appears that now you will have to endure the added inconvenience of the anti-incarceration techniques, like; Not labeling the contact for your secret drug den 'My House'.