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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 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