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

Skip to comments.

Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones
New York Times ^ | June 25, 2014 | ADAM LIPTAK

Posted on 06/25/2014 10:17:06 AM PDT by Second Amendment First

Edited on 06/25/2014 10:54:53 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

In a major statement on privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected from routine inspection.


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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: cellphone; cellphones; donutwatch; police; privacy

1 posted on 06/25/2014 10:17:06 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Even the word “cellphone” is a misnomer, he said. “They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, Rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers,” he wrote.

Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the decision would make law enforcement more difficult.

“Cellphones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals,” he wrote. “Privacy comes at a cost.”


2 posted on 06/25/2014 10:20:03 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Gee, some good news from the SCOTUS. Unexpected.

Probably something awful is coming next.


3 posted on 06/25/2014 10:22:21 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said cellphones are not materially different from wallets, purses and address books. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed.

“That is like saying a ride on horseback is not materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” he wrote.

4 posted on 06/25/2014 10:23:11 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

So what about cops who seize your cellphone and delete pictures/videos of them doing incriminating acts? OR how about cities that prohibit using cellphones to videotape/photograph cops in public?


5 posted on 06/25/2014 10:23:25 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Obama - The Scandal a Week President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

There is an app for that:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.aclunj.policetape&hl=en


6 posted on 06/25/2014 10:27:00 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Somebody mentioned that they should have added laptops. Probably a good idea. Oh well....next time.


7 posted on 06/25/2014 10:28:15 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

In a major statement .... Supreme Court .... unanimously ruled

Who wrote the minority statement????


8 posted on 06/25/2014 10:29:54 AM PDT by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

These days, there is more private info on a cellphone than in a whole house. Police love searching peoples cellphones without permission, and hate being videotaped, so an excellent decision. For better or worst, while the libertarian party will never will an election, the Supreme Court is basically libertarian. With some good anti-authoritarian ruling, mixed with support for immorality.


9 posted on 06/25/2014 10:39:50 AM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

These cops are criminals and these laws are illegal.


10 posted on 06/25/2014 10:40:48 AM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Good ruling.

Don’t expect it to be followed though.


11 posted on 06/25/2014 10:55:59 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; ...

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

12 posted on 06/25/2014 10:56:38 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: Second Amendment First

Nice, but they’re going to do what they want anyway.


13 posted on 06/25/2014 11:04:20 AM PDT by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Right decision - how much of the Constitution was involved in the opinion, I wonder.


14 posted on 06/25/2014 11:07:23 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

When our son was beaten, one of the perps stole his cell phone and left hers. I printed off all the information I could find before I turned it in to the police. They continued to use his cell phone and I could get a bunch of info off of it as far as people that they called etc. until I shut it down. One of the mildly fun things about that horrible time.


15 posted on 06/25/2014 11:08:51 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

” Even the word “cellphone” is a misnomer,
he said. “They could just as easily be
called cameras, video players, Rolodexes,
calendars, tape recorders, libraries,
diaries, albums, televisions, maps or
newspapers,” he wrote.”
It is a portable computing device now. It is like a cop walking into your house at will and sitting down to inspect the contents of your My Documents.

“Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that
the decision would make law
enforcement more difficult.”
Cops don’t get it that their convienence isn’t the goal. If they could, most cops would erase the Bill of Rights. They already look for excuses to ignore it.


16 posted on 06/25/2014 11:25:23 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

” Even the word “cellphone” is a misnomer,
he said. “They could just as easily be
called cameras, video players, Rolodexes,
calendars, tape recorders, libraries,
diaries, albums, televisions, maps or
newspapers,” he wrote.”
It is a portable computing device now. It is like a cop walking into your house at will and sitting down to inspect the contents of your My Documents.

“Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that
the decision would make law
enforcement more difficult.”
Cops don’t get it that their convienence isn’t the goal. If they could, most cops would erase the Bill of Rights. They already look for excuses to ignore it.


17 posted on 06/25/2014 11:25:36 AM PDT by LevinFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Thank goodness.


18 posted on 06/25/2014 11:27:28 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
A fair amount - lots of references to the 4th Amendment.

This doesn't mean police can't search your cellphone, etc., it just means that any evidence they find while doing so without a warrant is inadmissible. Also, of course, obtaining a warrant would allow a search with anything found being admissible.

19 posted on 06/25/2014 11:35:09 AM PDT by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

“Smart phones” are full-fledged pocket computer systems. They have far more processing power and storage capabilities than even supercomputers of a few decades past — to say nothing of the “peripherals”, such as cameras, radios (for telephony, and other wireless connections), music players, etc.


20 posted on 06/25/2014 11:41:27 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Somebody mentioned that they should have added laptops. Probably a good idea. Oh well....next time.

Given the stated reasoning of the decision, it would be virtually impossible to avoid applying the same logic to laptops/tablets. The only reason not to make it explicit now is that properly conducted courts tend to avoid ruling on questions not before them.

21 posted on 06/25/2014 12:06:53 PM PDT by koanhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

No big deal! See IRS and EPA actions. Destruction of evidence is important!! (there needs to be a kill switch that refuses bootup/powering if outside a predetermined proximity of the actual user; even the simple 4 digit code often enabled by phones should be used).


22 posted on 06/25/2014 12:22:41 PM PDT by SgtHooper (This is not my tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SgtHooper

It’s possible to remotely wipe a smartphone via a password-protected utility (assuming that the phone can be reached via the Internet). The premium (i.e. monthly/yearly fee) version of LookOut will do that, for example.


23 posted on 06/25/2014 12:44:50 PM PDT by koanhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BurningOak
Not counting Obamacare’s death panels
24 posted on 06/25/2014 12:52:17 PM PDT by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Luircin

“Not counting Obamacare’s death panels”

Yes you are right, but Kennedy actually was right on this one (and wrote a damn good argument), it was Roberts that went Judas on us. If there is a Roe v Wade on marriage next year, I would not be surprised if Roberts decides to side with the liberals for the sake of the history books.


25 posted on 06/25/2014 1:53:01 PM PDT by BurningOak (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

UNANIMOUS

Yahoo! Not even close which is as it should be.
26 posted on 06/25/2014 2:59:43 PM PDT by Holdem Or Foldem (Life isn't fair, so wear a cup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First

Does anyone really believe cops are gonna get warrants before checking people’s cellphones? I sure don’t.


27 posted on 06/25/2014 5:26:35 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob

SCOTUS has already invalidated such laws. Public employees/officers have no expectation of privacy while engaged in performing their duties in public.

Cities having been making settlements right and left due to officer violations of citizens rights to film.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/


28 posted on 06/25/2014 8:18:46 PM PDT by Valpal1 (If the police can t solve a problem with violence, they ll find a way to fix it with brute force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

Roberts? The same Roberts who stabbed us in the back with Odumbocare? I guess Klownie the Kenyan has no use for him for the moment.


29 posted on 06/26/2014 4:41:08 AM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | 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