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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws (for 21st century)
www.washingtontimes.com ^ | Updated: 10:37 a.m. on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 | By Stephen Dinan

Posted on 06/25/2014 7:59:26 AM PDT by Red Badger

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndthread; cellphone; cellphones; fakecelltowers; obamaphone; privacy; scotus; stingray; surveillance; towerdump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2014 7:59:26 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Unanimous decision! Wow! I am impressed! I figured that at least a few would go the East German route.


2 posted on 06/25/2014 8:03:54 AM PDT by Gunpowder green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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....


3 posted on 06/25/2014 8:03:58 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

But the NSA can do whatever they want...


4 posted on 06/25/2014 8:06:53 AM PDT by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Hard to believe!


5 posted on 06/25/2014 8:07:58 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunpowder green
Unanimous decision! Wow! I am impressed! I figured that at least a few would go the East German route.

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".

6 posted on 06/25/2014 8:08:06 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty ("Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?" - Patrick Henry, 1775)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This is funny. Now WHO is going to enforce this “law”? Eric Holder??


7 posted on 06/25/2014 8:08:08 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

They have cell phones as well...................


8 posted on 06/25/2014 8:09:29 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: apillar

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..


9 posted on 06/25/2014 8:10:33 AM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Satire?


10 posted on 06/25/2014 8:10:49 AM PDT by loungitude (The truth hurts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

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.................


11 posted on 06/25/2014 8:11:01 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: loungitude

No..................


12 posted on 06/25/2014 8:11:34 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

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.”


13 posted on 06/25/2014 8:12:02 AM PDT by ebersole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Does mean leo has to turn over their STINGRAY equipment?


14 posted on 06/25/2014 8:14:10 AM PDT by txhurl (2014: Stunned Voters do Stunning Things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

Change starts with a single act....so maybe the tide has begun with the Supremes.


15 posted on 06/25/2014 8:14:24 AM PDT by Kackikat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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?


16 posted on 06/25/2014 8:15:42 AM PDT by No Socialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
"SCOTUS decided that, now let THEM enforce it"

A famous quote from another genocidal Democrat (Andrew Jackson)

17 posted on 06/25/2014 8:16:03 AM PDT by HOYA97 (twitter @hoya97)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: No Socialist

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...................


18 posted on 06/25/2014 8:18:06 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


19 posted on 06/25/2014 8:26:58 AM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The Surpeme Cout is a CARTOON..


20 posted on 06/25/2014 8:29:46 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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


21 posted on 06/25/2014 8:31:55 AM PDT by Revelation 911 (apparently "bragging" (like I'd be that stupid) / sometimes sarcasm is lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Would seem that would extend to searching someone’s postings on the internet.


22 posted on 06/25/2014 8:33:28 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

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?


23 posted on 06/25/2014 8:43:28 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


24 posted on 06/25/2014 8:43:48 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


25 posted on 06/25/2014 8:45:34 AM PDT by Veggie Todd (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunpowder green

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 Court’s 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 Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and warrants may be obtained with increasing efficiency.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf


26 posted on 06/25/2014 8:49:30 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Left wing. Right wing. One buzzard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Please don’t modify the title of an article.


27 posted on 06/25/2014 8:57:55 AM PDT 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: Red Badger; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

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

28 posted on 06/25/2014 8:59:34 AM PDT 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

It was over 100 characters long........


29 posted on 06/25/2014 8:59:40 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

The ellipsis indicates that something is missing..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis


30 posted on 06/25/2014 9:00:58 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches, updates privacy laws

When you modify a title, the search function fails to find a match.


31 posted on 06/25/2014 9:05:05 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gunpowder green

I wonder if the PoPo’s latest little toy “Stingray” will be covered under this ruling


32 posted on 06/25/2014 9:11:10 AM PDT by BigpapaBo (If it don't kill you it'll make you _________!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Strange - they took this thread down and now it's back up. Now you see it now you don't - hey here it is again...

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.

33 posted on 06/25/2014 9:11:39 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I just tried it using:

title:Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches updates privacy laws

And it found it..................


34 posted on 06/25/2014 9:14:01 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; Admin Moderator

Argue with the moderators. It’s their policy.


35 posted on 06/25/2014 9:17:27 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I take their silence to be approval..................


36 posted on 06/25/2014 9:18:38 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“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.


37 posted on 06/25/2014 9:20:19 AM PDT by LibertyOh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


38 posted on 06/25/2014 9:20:48 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

Aren’t 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..


39 posted on 06/25/2014 9:21:25 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Different thread. Duplicate pulled.


40 posted on 06/25/2014 9:22:05 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Did anyone remember to tell the NSA?


41 posted on 06/25/2014 9:25:11 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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....................


42 posted on 06/25/2014 9:35:19 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


43 posted on 06/25/2014 9:36:33 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

HE may ignore it, but the local policia cannot...............


44 posted on 06/25/2014 9:38:52 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

And our Police State will simply ignore the ruling.


45 posted on 06/25/2014 9:41:28 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


46 posted on 06/25/2014 9:42:33 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

If they do, they cannot introduce in court any evidence they found for prosecution................


47 posted on 06/25/2014 9:43:13 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Will do.................


48 posted on 06/25/2014 9:43:42 AM PDT by Red Badger (I've posted a total of 2,743 threads and 84,837 replies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog
But the NSA can do whatever they want...

I've seen speculation that today's ruling was so broad that it could be used to challenge the NSA, actually.

49 posted on 06/25/2014 9:44:24 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


50 posted on 06/25/2014 9:44:27 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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