Jump to content

Supreme Court Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches, Updates Privacy Laws


Recommended Posts

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the unanimous court.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.”

Justices even said police cannot check a cellphone’s call log, saying even those contain more information that just phone numbers, and so perusing them is a violation of privacy that can only be justified with a warrant.

The chief justice said cellphones are different not only because people can carry around so much more data — the equivalent of millions of pages of documents — that police would have access to, but that the data itself is qualitatively different than what someone might otherwise carry.

He said it could lay bare someone’s entire personal history, from their medical records to their “specific movements down to the minute.”

The chief justice cited court precedent that found a difference between asking someone to turn out his pockets versus “ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him” — and the court found that a cellphone falls into that second category.

Complicating matters further is the question of where the data is actually stored. The Obama administration and the state of California, both of which sought to justify cell phone searches, acknowledged that remotely stored data couldn’t be searched — but Chief Justice Roberts said with cloud computing, it’s now sometimes impossible to know the difference.

The court did carve out exceptions for “exigencies” that arise, such as major security threats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/25/supreme-court-bans-warrantless-cell-phone-searches/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people’s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.

“The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the unanimous court.

“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.”

Justices even said police cannot check a cellphone’s call log, saying even those contain more information that just phone numbers, and so perusing them is a violation of privacy that can only be justified with a warrant.

The chief justice said cellphones are different not only because people can carry around so much more data — the equivalent of millions of pages of documents — that police would have access to, but that the data itself is qualitatively different than what someone might otherwise carry.

He said it could lay bare someone’s entire personal history, from their medical records to their “specific movements down to the minute.”

The chief justice cited court precedent that found a difference between asking someone to turn out his pockets versus “ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him” — and the court found that a cellphone falls into that second category.

Complicating matters further is the question of where the data is actually stored. The Obama administration and the state of California, both of which sought to justify cell phone searches, acknowledged that remotely stored data couldn’t be searched — but Chief Justice Roberts said with cloud computing, it’s now sometimes impossible to know the difference.

The court did carve out exceptions for “exigencies” that arise, such as major security threats.

http://www.washingto...phone-searches/

Ah how sweet of them to do this while they put the capturing devices out in Chicago. We wont search it but we will just grab everything off of it. I will sleep better tonight knowing the justices are on our side.dry.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah how sweet of them to do this while they put the capturing devices out in Chicago. We wont search it but we will just grab everything off of it. I will sleep better tonight knowing the justices are on our side.dry.png

the Supreme Court can't do anything about it until somebody challenges it. They did the right thing in this challenge and should be commended for it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Supreme Court can't do anything about it until somebody challenges it. They did the right thing in this challenge and should be commended for it

I don't think the Supreme Court can ever win. When they make a bad ruling people proclaim they're bought off or are being an activist court and when they make a good ruling people complain they didn't overreach with the ruling to ban or allow somewhat related things (ie. be an activist court).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Supreme Court can't do anything about it until somebody challenges it. They did the right thing in this challenge and should be commended for it

You missed the point of my post. It was more about the timing of it in light of everything that has come out the last couple of years. This ruling means nothing since neither part has any regard for The Constitution or the the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how this is a partisan issue. You would think that both sides would have an interest in preventing the government searching our persons or property without due process.

But that's part of the big hustle isn't it? A person feels obligated to take a side on this based on their membership of one particular partisan cheering section, and not their own best interests. So everyone gets bent over.

Edited by Gritzblitz 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how this is a partisan issue. You would think that both sides would have an interest in preventing the government searching our persons or property without due process.

But that's part of the big hustle isn't it? A person feels obligated to take a side on this based on their membership of one particular partisan cheering section, and not their own best interests. So everyone gets bent over.

Welcome to contemporary American politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 4th... Oh this ruling doesn't apply when drugs are involved probably.

Or if the subject appears "nervous"...

Of all the crocks 'o shite decisions regarding searches that has to be the worst one in the history of the Court...smh

First, it's completely arbitrary and secondly, everyone gets nervous around cops, more nervous at least than they were before the cop showed up, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...