Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court requires warrant for the collection of historic cell-site data
Supreme Court of the United States ^ | 06/22/2018 | SCOTUS

Posted on 06/22/2018 7:49:55 AM PDT by TexasGurl24

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: TexasGurl24

Excellent news!


21 posted on 06/22/2018 8:34:15 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin

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

It is the perfect alibi!

Well we checked their cell phone records and they were home the whole evening they can;t possibly be the robber, case dismissed!


22 posted on 06/22/2018 8:35:50 AM PDT by GraceG ("Q is dead, been dead a for a while...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
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?

From the Original Post:

The other addresses a person’s expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties. See United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (no expectation of privacy in financial records held by a bank), and Smith, 442 U. S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in records of dialed telephone numbers conveyed to telephone company). Pp. 7–10.

Looks like in one case, the second party is whomever you did business with through the bank, for instance if you wrote a check or used a debit card to make a legal or illegal purchase and in the other case, the second party is whomever you called, whomever you "dialed up" using the phone company's service.

23 posted on 06/22/2018 8:38:14 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of oignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rexthecat

That’s even better.


24 posted on 06/22/2018 8:38:20 AM PDT by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

It’s getting to where people would find that convincing.


25 posted on 06/22/2018 8:39:19 AM PDT by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dave W

Agreed.

Hopefully someone creates a decent summary of the dissent as it’s disappointing to see the normally conservative justices on that side of the argument.


26 posted on 06/22/2018 8:41:59 AM PDT by Manuel OKelley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

To get a warrant is only proper and in line with the constitution.


27 posted on 06/22/2018 8:42:36 AM PDT by kenmcg (tHE WHOLE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

The police need a warrant but the phone company and all the apps on your phone are selling you.


28 posted on 06/22/2018 8:43:18 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The people have spoken
Roberts joins the libs.

It seems reasonable to me that law enforcement should be required to get a warrant demonstrating probable cause to turn over the these records.

29 posted on 06/22/2018 8:49:41 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
historic cell-site data

Is there such a thing as "non-historic" data? Like they might have a method of collecting future data?

30 posted on 06/22/2018 8:57:57 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Mozart tells you what it's like to be human. Bach tells you what it's like to be the universe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle

That’s the thing — I would think that business, not the phone company or the bank, is the third party. Before I made my first phone call (re: Smith vs Maryland), was the phone company already the “third party”? Who was already the second party in that case? They’re not trying to get records from the hundred “third party” people I called, they’re trying to get records from the phone company, whom they’re pretending to be some legally distant “third party”. These are the questions that have been vexing me for quite some time.


31 posted on 06/22/2018 9:05:19 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Well we checked their cell phone records and they were home the whole evening they can;t possibly be the robber, case dismissed!

This is why Job One is total digital surveillance. It makes policing a whole lot easier.

32 posted on 06/22/2018 9:06:41 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
Well we checked their cell phone records and they were home the whole evening they can;t possibly be the robber, case dismissed!

I disagree. The very fine legal point in the decision here is that you're just turning on your phone, which is what communicates your position data to the cell tower. You didn't "volunteer" that information in the same way that you write something down and send it to the IRS or go to the store and make a purchase.

I hasten to add, as I have posted here, that I think the whole pretense of "volunteering your personal information to a third party" is also BS, and in two different ways, but whether that idea is BS or not was not what decided this case.

33 posted on 06/22/2018 9:13:48 AM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Good in some ways, bad in others. It’s a draw.................


34 posted on 06/22/2018 9:13:59 AM PDT by Red Badger (When Obama and VJ go to prison for treason, will Roseanne get her show back?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

“prosecutors were granted court orders to obtain the suspects’ cell phone records”

...

“Carpenter moved to suppress the data, arguing that the Government’s seizure of the records without obtaining a warrant supported by probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.”

Could someone give a simple explanation of the difference between “a court order to obtain records” and “a warrant”?


35 posted on 06/22/2018 9:17:46 AM PDT by FewsOrange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

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

The person on the other end of your telephone call?


36 posted on 06/22/2018 9:19:09 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FewsOrange

Subpoena vs warrant.


37 posted on 06/22/2018 9:21:40 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

I’m fine with this
Why should the authorities be able to search your private residence car phone anything without a- permission. Or B - a warrant
For us law abiders. It’s not an issue. We’ll just grant permission to clear our name
It’s only law breakers or those with things to hide that are clearly concerned


38 posted on 06/22/2018 9:36:06 AM PDT by Truthoverpower (The guvmint you get is the Trump winning express !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Yep, there is just too much temptation and potential for abuse of police power these days. If you doubt me, or need any further evidence of corruption of the police power, simply look at the FBI’s despicable attempts to essentially set up and entrap certain low level members of the Trump transition team. Look at how Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power “unmasked” hundreds of Americans in the closing days of the Obama administration. Some officers and prosecutors will do most anything to “make a name” for themselves. No, better to make them get a warrant.


39 posted on 06/22/2018 9:42:20 AM PDT by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

“Is there such a thing as “non-historic” data? Like they might have a method of collecting future data? “

I think they use non-historic data for the climate change studies. At least it seems like much of the data they use doesn’t correlate with history, or the future for that matter.


40 posted on 06/22/2018 10:07:53 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of oignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson