> The point is about what the law should be to be useful.
The law creates a perfectly useful distinction. What's in your mind is in your mind. What's on inanimate objects, whether they be desk drawers or iPhones, is subject to search.
That is the current law. I'm arguing that it should be changed . Inanimate objects got a lot more advanced in the last 20 years, the law hasn't become nuanced enough to deal with this.
What does it matter that inanimate objects got more advanced? Was the original distinction ever due to the fact that inanimate objects weren't advanced?
The law creates a perfectly useful distinction. What's in your mind is in your mind. What's on inanimate objects, whether they be desk drawers or iPhones, is subject to search.