Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court to weigh cell phone searches by police
Yahoo! News Canada ^ | 01/17/2014 | Lawrence Hurley

Posted on 01/18/2014 2:36:24 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances.

Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones.

(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4a; papersplease; passwordplease; policestate; privacyrights; scotus; searchandseizure; smartphone

1 posted on 01/18/2014 2:36:24 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

2 posted on 01/18/2014 2:38:29 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Related articles:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/police-search-suspect-39-cellphone-no-warrant-supreme-230659458.html

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-weigh-police-power-search-arrestees-39-202006173.html


3 posted on 01/18/2014 2:46:51 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Good luck with that, my phone nukes itself if you enter the code wrong enough times.


4 posted on 01/18/2014 2:56:05 AM PST by Crazieman (Are you naive enough to think VOTING will fix this entrenched system?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Why is it that everyone forgot this about a warrant?

“particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In other words, EXACTLY the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That’s what the Constitution says.


5 posted on 01/18/2014 3:02:08 AM PST by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djf

And everyone needs to see your own relevant state constitutions for the exact wording.


6 posted on 01/18/2014 3:08:51 AM PST by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Hint dint use an iPhone. Cops can easily pull info off of it.


7 posted on 01/18/2014 3:16:53 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crazieman

With an iPhone you don’t need a code.


8 posted on 01/18/2014 3:17:51 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: djf

I’m with you. Since the police can and do confiscate, inventory, and securely store all personal effects of an arrested person, to remove weapons and anything that might be used for escape, there are rarely (other than with the ticking bomb found in fiction and in big government fantasies) exigent circumstances which create a compelling need for immediate action to search the phone. If law enforcement wants to do a lawful search, they can get a warrant. Otherwise, government agents have no business searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects” when the phone clearly qualifies as “effects” and is the modern equivalent of “papers”.

I have nothing sensitive on my phone, but I am sensitive to protecting what’s left of our Constitution. If we’re going to throw out evidence based on Miranda violations, we should certainly throw out evidence based on unlawful searches.


9 posted on 01/18/2014 3:31:15 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

More fine tuning to “expectation of privacy”?
Oh, wait, we already know it is not private, the NSA has it all, already.


10 posted on 01/18/2014 3:43:41 AM PST by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

The school in which I teach is embroiled in a rape case that made international headlines. One of the issues was those who took pics on their iPhones. BCI could not retrieve that data after it was deleted, but only if the owner had not forwarded the pictures.


11 posted on 01/18/2014 3:52:05 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

They are worried about someone initiating a remote wipe before they can get a warrant according to the article.


12 posted on 01/18/2014 3:58:48 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EVO X
They are worried about someone initiating a remote wipe before they can get a warrant according to the article.

I read the article and saw nothing about that possibility, nor did I see any indication in either case under consideration that such a possibility was a consideration. One of the phones in question was not even a smart phone. Perhaps I missed it, but even so a remote wipe strikes me more as an excuse than a valid justification. In the rare event that they have a sophisticated criminal, worthy of "24", the police can shield the phone or remove the battery (least intrusive means to preserve evidence, comparable to stationing police outside the private residence of a detained suspect while awaiting a warrant) while waiting for a warrant.

13 posted on 01/18/2014 4:10:18 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

My phone memory is encrypted so there isn’t much they are going to do.


14 posted on 01/18/2014 4:20:51 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Uh, yes. If the guy was arrested for a crime, why not? If they arrest somebody, can’t they search his car without a warrant?


15 posted on 01/18/2014 4:24:44 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Oops. Must of been in one of the other linked articles. I agree with your conclusion.


16 posted on 01/18/2014 4:27:00 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The courts and the police and their respective operations are anachronisms. They are buggy-whip manufacturers who happen to have the force of law behind them.

Like the 19th Century tax code they often enforce, their structures and staffing are meant to protect jobs.

This is why constitutional principles should trump any particulars of contemporary technology. Searching one’s phone without a warrant is the same as searching a home or a vehicle. When courts get tangled up in the minutiae of a case they have unquestionably abandoned their mission.


17 posted on 01/18/2014 4:40:54 AM PST by relictele (Principiis obsta & Finem respice - Resist The Beginnings & Consider The End)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I don't see the SC stopping the Federal Leviathan. For goodness sakes, they have affirmed the government's right to force us to buy a product that is for all intents and purposes useless (health insurance with $15,000 deductibles) and tax us into the ozone if we don't.

All formerly "American" institutions are now "Imperial" ones. America died a long time ago. We worker bees just haven't received the memo to stand down.

18 posted on 01/18/2014 6:20:52 AM PST by Lawgvr1955 (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

My cell phone needs a pin number to access it. Let’s say I was arrested and the police wanted to search my phone without a warrant. They ask for the pin number, I refuse. They then obtain a warrant and again ask for the pin number. Do I have to give it to them or can I cite the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination?


19 posted on 01/18/2014 6:42:04 AM PST by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

Unless the phone manufacturer build a back door at the direction of the NSA.


20 posted on 01/18/2014 6:54:54 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Republican amnesty supporters don't care whether their own homes are called mansions or haciendas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I’d like to see a 48 hour GPS trail that Trayvon used up until his death. I’ll bet it placed him inside of some neighborhood homes. But we’ll never know because Attorney Crump had it erased.


21 posted on 01/18/2014 7:14:33 AM PST by usual suspect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

IIRC, Trayvon Martin’s cell phone was double encrypted. It took 6 months to break the encryption on it...but they did. And then the judge ruled it couldn’t be used due to authentication issues.


22 posted on 01/18/2014 7:42:41 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
More fine tuning to “expectation of privacy”?

The right to privacy applies only to the murder of the unborn, apparently.

23 posted on 01/18/2014 12:36:03 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ops33

You have the right to remain SILENT! Never, ever forget that.


24 posted on 01/18/2014 12:38:25 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
According to the Motion to Continue, the state told O’Mara that when Trayvon’s phone was recovered, the phone was wet and inoperable. On August 8, at a joint meeting, O’Mara asked if a charger could be used to restart it. FDLE analyst Steven Brenton came in and charged up the phone. When the screen came up, it said the phone was “locked out,” meaning someone had tried to unlock it more than the maximum permitted times with the wrong password. Brenton then disclosed he had performed an analysis of the phone, but was only able to access the SIM card and SD card, not the internal memory. (Eventually, O’Mara received some of the material Brenton had downloaded from the phone and Brenton's report.)

Sometime after that, someone at the state’s attorneys office shipped Trayvon’s phone to a law enforcement agency in California for analysis. The agency was “seemingly able” to access the internal memory. The state refuses to give the defense any information as to who at the state’s attorney’s office decided to do this, the name of the agency it was sent to, the identity of the analyst who obtained the data, or the results obtained.

After the unnamed agency returned the phone, during the first week of January, 2013, the state sent it to Cellebrite in New Jersey for analysis. Cellebrite also was able to access the internal memory, and the state provided the defense with the results on January 18. The defense says Cellebrite obtained an “enormous” amount of information from the internal memory. But, guess what's missing? All data for Feburary 26, the day/evening of the shooting.

That's an excerpt from the Talk Left blog. So, it was even more cunning than Crump’s shenanigans.

25 posted on 01/18/2014 12:47:50 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

Not true. A hacker retrieved it and got a worse sentence than the actual rapist.


26 posted on 01/18/2014 1:35:57 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Repeal The 17th
More fine tuning to “expectation of privacy”?

Probably. I don't know why they bother. That particular phrase has pretty much destroyed the 4th amendment already.

27 posted on 01/18/2014 2:04:08 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

You must be thinking of a different case. In this case no hackers retrieved anything; therefore, nobody was prosecuted except the two rapists. Five others have recently been indicted by the grand jury regarding an elleged cover-up though.


28 posted on 01/18/2014 2:52:00 PM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

If this is the Steubenville rape then its the right one...if not then its a different one.


29 posted on 01/18/2014 4:36:37 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

Yes, the Steubenville case. No hackers hacked anything. Some tech savvy activists pulled youtube vids that the kids posted then deleted, but there is nothing illegal about that. When you put something on the Internet it’s always there. Our tech administrator is alleged to have tried to delete info off of our school computers and will go to trial soon for that.


30 posted on 01/18/2014 5:53:39 PM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

See Arizona v. Gant (2009).
The court limited the regularly abused “search incident to arrest” which was originally carved out as an exception to the warrant requirement to prevent the destruction of evidence or officer safety.
But the cops were arresting people for minor traffic violations or outstanding warrants for failure to pay tickets, etc. then searching everything in the car while the person is handcuffed in the back seat of the police car.
Scalia griped about the abuse of search incident (since the cops expanded it to situations where the rationale for the rule wasn’t implicated) since the late 80s. He was exactly right, and finally got a 5-4 majority in the above referenced case.
Now the facts must implicate the original basis for search incident to arrest, or the search must be an offense related search.
So, if one is arrested for running a stop sign and placed in the back of the patrol car, the cops can’t search everything in the car pursuant to the arrest.
It’s hard to imagine many stops where the contents of the phone should be subject to a warrantless search.
Either way, if I thought they might confiscate my phone I would probably go to settings and reset (erase) my phone.
I could always restore it later at home- that is if they gave me the phone back.


31 posted on 01/18/2014 8:55:13 PM PST by Clump ( the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

http://freepatriot.org/2014/01/12/hacker-exposed-steubenville-rapists-faces-prison-time-rapists/


32 posted on 01/18/2014 11:57:30 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I would take this article with a grain of salt. First, the rapists have not had 1/3 of their sentences reduced. Richmond was just released, which is exactly one year. Mays has another year left, and if anything could serve more time. So that part of the article is incorrect. Second, Steubenville considers these two martyrs for going to jail. As far as the community is concerned, it is the victim’s fault and they were just boys being boys. In fact, after the verdict two additional students were arrested for using social media to harass and threaten the victim. If somebody had been arrested for releasing this info, it would have been celebrated throughout the city. It was not. We’ve never heard of this guy. Third, BCI admitted that nothing was hacked and that the released info was already posted by those involved and then taken down. You know Twitchy’s slogan: The Internet is forever.

Again, the only info released to the public was info posted on the Internet and then deleted or texts made public by those involved before arrests and warrants. None of this is illegal.


33 posted on 01/19/2014 4:57:29 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun

How bout UPI? http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/Blog/2014/01/13/Anonymous-hacker-who-exposed-Steubenville-rapists-facing-more-jail-time-than-sex-offenders/6451389643497/


34 posted on 01/19/2014 5:12:48 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: for-q-clinton

I would like to add that I will ask the detectives about this guy at church today. I’d like more info because if it’s true that he was arrested it’s very creepy we’ve never heard of it.


35 posted on 01/19/2014 5:13:22 AM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks. My question may be moot. My wife works with internet security and she told me there is software that can crack a 4 digit pin in under a minute.


36 posted on 01/19/2014 5:56:13 AM PST by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson