FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/25/2014 7:59:26 AM PDT by 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
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 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
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..............
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis
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.
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..
Different thread. Duplicate pulled.
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.