The proposed law (SB 914) restricting cell phone searches during traffic stops was passed by the California legislature but is not yet signed by Governor Brown (rumor has it that he will not sign it). So, the January, 2011 California Supreme Court decision, which inspired SB 914, has not been overturned. This state appeals court decision from the end of September, 2011 is a distinct case. I understand your skepticism about a Glenn Beck related news site, but I think the confusion over two similar California court decisions in the same year explains things.

At the point when the police started to search the car he was under arrest, suspected of being under the influence of an illegal drug. The officer was trained in how to identify people as being under the influence of drugs. The officer, in his report, thought the suspect was under the influence of an illegal stimulant. The urine test for the suspect came back positive only for marijuana and opiates. If you know anything about drugs, those two are not stimulants and their effects, and symptoms, are quite different from that of stimulants. The court's judgement did not go into detail about the drug test results, in particular, the levels detected. Low levels in the urine can still be detected corresponding to an amount that would have little effect on the body and mind. He could have ingested marijuana two weeks previously or taken opiates at any time in the last few days. The result of the drug test clearly showed the officer didn't know what he was talking about, was just guessing, or took the behavior of a person nervous because of a police stop as indicative of illegal drug use in order to allow a search of the car. The appeals court affirmed that a search of the phone's contents was not justified by an inventory search prior to impounding the car. The police then shifted their justification to being a search incident to arrest. This, according to the appeals court, justified the search of the phones contents. Apart from the issue of 4th amendment rights, what I find bogus is the arrest itself. If a "trained" officer can interpret the behavior of someone who has just been stopped by the police and is understandably nervous, as the abnormal symptoms of someone under the influence of an illegal drug, then drug detection becomes just a ruse to justify a fishing expedition by searching for evidence of further crimes. The other inconsistency by the officer was in deciding to impound the car when the suspect was a half mile from home. He was suspected of being under the influence of an illegal drug but not impaired enough to be a DUI. Otherwise the sheriff would have been forced to transfer the stop to a CHP officer. So the sheriff is trying to justify this in court, saying he couldn't allow him to drive because the suspect couldn't drive safely yet he wasn't impaired. The sheriff's office probably used this ruse to allow a search of the entire car while a search incident to arrest would be limited the passenger compartment.

I am guessing from the titles of sealed documents smooth cache invalidation. Timely removal of route cache entries to allow a quick response to DDOS attacks. rt_genid() in Route.c first version of kernel to be infringing: 2.4.22 and 2.6.31

If there was a further response by the owner's of the router concerning giving out the password, why wouldn't the court document have mentioned that? It would have been a fairly important point concerning the second charge (intrusion). On the note found by the police, the number after ww, which I assume means wachtword, is probably not a serial number. It is most likely the password for the router. The Speedtouch router generates a default password based on the SSID. There is a known vulnerability with these in that the algorithm that generates the password is flawed and allows someone to easily find out the password given the SSID.

Could you translate this:
en haar vriend hebben de beveiligingscode niet aan derden verstrekt.

I know you're exaggerating, but you are not too far off. Ignoring the charges of terroristic threats, threats of bodily harm and lying to the police, you have unauthorized access of a protected computer in relation to another felony (threats) and theft of bandwidth, The unauthorized access charge, itself, has a max penalty of 5 years. Hard to say what judges in the US might actually do, even if this was your first crime. The Dutch guy would have gotten 60 days community service if the computer intrusion charge had not been overturned. US law is beginning to treat any computer use involved with a crime similar to using a gun and, yes, your cell phone is a computer.

Nice summary but I would change one thing. I understood from reading the court document that the defendant claimed he received the password from his neighbors but the neighbors said they had not given it to anybody. My assumption has been that the defendant used a security vulnerability to determine the password. The Alcatel (now Thomson) wireless router involved, Speedtouch 51EBO2 has a known vulnerability in the algorithm to generate default password that allows the password to be easily figured out.

The defendant is 25 years old. His year of birth is listed in the court document.

Apparently, under Dutch law, bandwidth is not an asset and cannot be stolen. What Americans would call stealing of bandwidth is a civil matter there, not criminal

The worst problem in that translation is the following sentence. Daarom vervult een router niet de cumulatieve functies zoals neergelegd in artikel 80sexies van het Wetboek van Strafrecht. Therefore, the router performs a cumulative functions as enshrined in Article 80sexies of the Criminal Code. Note the word "niet". The English translation should read instead "... the router does not perform..." exactly the opposite meaning. I believe they decided that a router was not a computer, in the legal sense, because it was primarily used to transfer data and did not store any sensitive information itself. The court recognized that the owner's actual computer, with sensitive information, was not accessed by the defendant, therefore, there was no computer intrusion.