Skip to comments.Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws (for 21st century)
Posted on 06/25/2014 7:59:26 AM PDT by Red Badger
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through peoples 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 cellphones 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Unanimous decision! Wow! I am impressed! I figured that at least a few would go the East German route.
Wow, the ruling is really broad! They even banned police from glancing at the list of recent calls. Basically they can’t touch your phone without a search warrant. The big nanny statists aren’t happy today....
But the NSA can do whatever they want...
Hard to believe!
I suspect that emperor Hussein and the inner circle of his regime are saying "SCOTUS decided that, now let THEM enforce it - it will be business as usual in the Socialist States of Amerika".
This is funny. Now WHO is going to enforce this “law”? Eric Holder??
They have cell phones as well...................
Yes, is this still the case as in wire tapping.... Yes they cannot use what they find in your phone, without a search warrant in court against you, but they can still look through it if they want? As in current wire tap laws, doesn’t stop them from listening, just using it in court.
NSA comes to mind..
This is a case where there is no active enforcement procedure. They cannot use any evidence in court that is procured thru the search of a cell phone without a warrant.................
Amen to that and all of the other remaining intelligence agencies...they’ll just hide behind this curtain “The court did carve out exceptions for exigencies that arise, such as major security threats.”
Does mean leo has to turn over their STINGRAY equipment?
Change starts with a single act....so maybe the tide has begun with the Supremes.
I have a hard time understanding legal jargon.
Does anyone know if this means that they can’t confiscate your cell phone during a traffic stop or other stop? Just wondering if it doesn’t mean much if they can take it anyway and then wait to search until they have a warrant.
In other words, will be have time to smash the phone and destroy it, much like the IRS, before they can use it against us?
A famous quote from another genocidal Democrat (Andrew Jackson)
Essentially you are correct. They must wait for a warrant. They cannot even look at the call log. To obtain a warrant, they must prove to a judge that one is necessary for them to see what’s on the phone in order to prosecute the crime that is at hand, not just snoop to see what they can find...................
A supreme court ruling carries exactly how much weight under the obama regime?
A pen, a phone, a threat, a drone. All in your future if you dare go against the wishes of the obama regime.
funny how cell phones were not considered by the Framers, yet the right is retained. Try the same with modern guns and see how fast they howl
Would seem that would extend to searching someone’s postings on the internet.
Some heroic liberal drew that nasty cartoon, to make fun of the CONSERVATIVES on the court while leaving the “wise latina” and the other lefties untouched.
Aren’t you proud to have posted that crapola supporting the American nanny state left?
The internet is not private. If criminals are dumb enough to post videos of their crimes on YouTube, the police are free to view them, laugh, and go out and arrest the dumb criminals.
I think it was unanimous because they thought it was a case that forced everyone to buy cell phones and forced parents to buy cell phones for their children until they’re 26 years old.
Excellent news! Like you, I did not expect it to be unanimous!
“It is true that this decision will have some impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. But the Courts holding is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is that a warrant is generally required before a search. The warrant requirement is an important component of the Courts Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and warrants may be obtained with increasing efficiency.”
Please don’t modify the title of an article.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It was over 100 characters long........
The ellipsis indicates that something is missing..............
Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws
When you modify a title, the search function fails to find a match.
I wonder if the PoPo’s latest little toy “Stingray” will be covered under this ruling
Well, it's nice to see SCOTUS where at least their decision conforms to the Constitution. Whether the opinion revolves around constitutionally-based reasoning is another question. Even a conforming decision based on flawed reasoning can come back and bite you later. I think it was 9-0 which is also nice to see in this case.
I just tried it using:
title:Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches updates privacy laws
And it found it..................
Argue with the moderators. It’s their policy.
I take their silence to be approval..................
“They have cell phones as well...”
Similar to the VCR case in the 80’s where they found the retained home copy of broadcast TV to be “time-shifting” and allowed it - the majority of Justices had VCR’s.
Then the Blackberry case, essentially gutting injunctive relief for patent owners in many cases - but the Justices couldn’t take the chance their Blackberries stop working.
Bottom line - if a case really has broad implications and could actually affect the Justices personally, don’t be surprised if they find a way to write a decision in their own best interests.
And no, an exact title search doesn’t find a match. There’s a comma in the title. What exactly is your issue? I asked nicely.
Arent you proud to have posted that crapola supporting the American nanny state left?
Yes; quite proud.. nobodys perfect, leftys screw up and get it right sometimes..
Obama performs treason daily.. and the Supremes sit on their thumbs..
Not that they could actually do anything.. The Attorney General sucks those thumbs.. i.e. keeps them clean..
AND...... they insert them again.. It’s quite disgusting..
.................It’s like Supreme Court Porn..
Different thread. Duplicate pulled.
Did anyone remember to tell the NSA?
The search algorithm seems to ignore punctuation marks and extra spaces in its matching criteria. The ellipsis is a punctuation mark, so it is ignored in the search. The words that are used in the search match all words used in the title, so it is found....................
Does anyone think this means anything to the MARXIST in the White Hut? He will ignore it just like he has ignored other court decisions.
HE may ignore it, but the local policia cannot...............
And our Police State will simply ignore the ruling.
The title fit just fine, even the addition with some of the subtitle.
Observe how it was done (look at title as modified to conform to standards/rules) and do it properly next time.
If they do, they cannot introduce in court any evidence they found for prosecution................
I've seen speculation that today's ruling was so broad that it could be used to challenge the NSA, actually.
Dude, get over it already. Don’t be so thin-skinned. You’re hijacking your own thread.
Searching for the exact title with the comma - as copied from The Washington Times - does not find a match.