FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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 ...
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.”
Gee, some good news from the SCOTUS. Unexpected.
Probably something awful is coming next.
“That is like saying a ride on horseback is not materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” he wrote.
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?
Somebody mentioned that they should have added laptops. Probably a good idea. Oh well....next time.
In a major statement .... Supreme Court .... unanimously ruled
Who wrote the minority statement????
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.
These cops are criminals and these laws are illegal.
Good ruling.
Don’t expect it to be followed though.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Nice, but they’re going to do what they want anyway.
Right decision - how much of the Constitution was involved in the opinion, I wonder.
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.
” 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.
” 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.
Thank goodness.
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.
“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.
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.