Supreme Court requires warrant for the collection of historic cell-site data

Supreme Court of the United States ^ | 06/22/2018 | SCOTUS

[HartleyMBaldwin]

I think I’ll just leave my cell phone at home when I do robberies.

[The people have spoken]

Roberts joins the libs.

[rexthecat]

When I do robberies I take my wife’s phone.

[alternatives?]

“When I do robberies I take my wife’s phone.”

LOL

[Dave W]

This decision was correct. Probably the only lib winning opinion I have ever agreed with.

[JohnC2004]

I feel the same way Dave. At face value I like the ruling. I’ve never wanted to read both sides of a ruling but I’m very curious this time why the majority of conservative leaning judges dissented here. I’m gonna have to read the whole thing this time.

[jiggyboy]

The digital data at issue—personal location information maintained by a third party—does not fit neatly under existing precedents but lies at the intersection of two lines of cases. One set addresses a person’s expectation of privacy in his physical location and movements. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400 (five Justices concluding that privacy concerns would be raised by GPS tracking). The other addresses a person’s expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties

I still can't figure out how my relationship with my bank or with my phone company has three "parties", and how my bank or my phone company is some distant "third party" and not the second party in that very tight relationship. That sleight of hand has enabled all of this warrantless searching.

Can somebody help me out here? Who's the "second party", if not the phone company?

[DesertRhino]

So is your position that the government should be able to track all citizens, at all times, using their cell phone. And be able to force cell companies to give them that data...all with no warrant?

[DesertRhino]

“Can somebody help me out here? Who’s the “second party”, if not the phone company? “

Nice catch. That is the Government that made themselves the second party almost without anyone noticing. Creeps.

[Wuli]

I agree. It does not say the government cannot get the data.

It says it cannot have access to all the data all the time just to fishing in it. It has to get a warrant.

Unfortunately too many “Conservatives” prefer what they are told is for our “security” over our Liberty.

I do not believe government data fishing expeditions enhance our security. Most crimes are solved after the fact, not prevented beforehand. And after the fact warrants are not hard to obtain.

[TheZMan]

Based on this, the IRS cannot utilize banking records, credit card purchase history, et al, to go after you without a warrant. Read the dissenting opinions compared to the decision. There are likely other areas that are now sue-worthy based on this decision.

[CurlyDave]

I like the decision, but can understand the reasoning of the conservatives.

Now, when does the court address the Stingray issue. That is a lot more intrusive and should require a warrant.

[null and void]

My position is the The State has reasonable cause to suspect an individual of a crime, and they can convince a judge that they have a need to access data, they should be required to get a warrant, just like they would be required to get a warrant to search a house.

[DesertRhino]

“Based on this, the IRS cannot utilize banking records, credit card purchase history, et al, to go after you without a warrant. “

Very cool

[DesertRhino]

exactly

[Shady]

Agreed.

[null and void]

Yet there are some, even here, who are willing to give up rights for the illusion of safety...

[Captain Compassion]

Good!

[NorthMountain]

There are likely other areas that are now sue-worthy based on this decision.

Good. Fedzilla needs to be shoved back into its Constitutional cage.