[HartleyMBaldwin]

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

[The people have spoken]

Roberts joins the libs.

[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?

[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.

[Captain Compassion]

Good!

[Constitution Day]

Excellent news!

[kenmcg]

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

[minnesota_bound]

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

[Red Badger]

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

[FewsOrange]

“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”?

[Truthoverpower]

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

[mtrott]

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.

[Still Thinking]

Wait, so the libs (and Roberts) voted to constrain government, while the supposed conservatives and originalists (except Roberts) voted to empower it. Is EVERYONE on crack?