Can Search and Seizure be extended in the content of a laptop?

The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a core right implicit in the natural right to life, liberty and property. Even in the absence of a constitution, individuals have a fundamental and natural right against unreasonable search and seizure under natural law.

Article III Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, andparticularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Constitution also provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the provision mentioned is inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3, Article III).

The general rule is this — no arrests and search/seizure could be made without a warrant. However, there are exceptions. Among the exceptions concerning search and seizure are: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; and (3) waiver by the accused of his right against unreasonable search and seizure. These exceptions, while distinct and separate from each other, are often discussed together (routine airport security inspection is a slightly different matter, but that’s the subject of another post).

Search and seizure is valid when made with a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The law also provides for exceptions for warrantless searches. However, searching a person’s laptop is subject to the protection of the Constitution which requires a warrant specifying the document to be searched thereby my answer is in the affirmative that a valid search and seizure can be extended to the contents of a laptop provided it is done in compliance with the law.

RA 9775 otherwise known as The Anti-Child Pornography Law and RA 9239 of the Optical Media Act of 2003 both require search warrants from any court of law for the taking of optical media containing suspicious data.

In US v. Ramsey, searches and seizures to be conducted at the border do not need the warrant requirements due to their government’s interest to secure borders. The border search exception is based on the rationale that the government interest to protect borders is more important than an individual’s privacy interest.1 In People v. Endacott, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal of California concluded that a search of the defendant’s electronic devices was valid under the border search exception. (United States v. Flores-Montano, 549, 153 (2004) and People v. Endacott, 79 Cal. Rptr. 3d 907, 908-910 Ct. App. 2008)

There are lots of privacy issues on searches and seizures of laptops as these devices hold loads of information. It is up to our lawmakers to set the standard by which our country is secured while privacy rights of individuals are protected.Therefore search and seizure may be done, provided it is limited only to what was alleged in the search warrant as required by law.