9-0 Ruling: Cellphone Searches Require a Warrant

[Brainonska511]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html

WASHINGTON — 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.

Looks like they got this one right. A modern cellphone is like a minicomputer with your personal history on it. If it is so vital to search, the police can get a warrant.

 

[Jaskalas]

A major victory for human rights: privacy. Still a long ways to go though, with the existence of the NSA.
Police are hereby required to follow the law... fed gov, not so much.

 

[Matt1970]

About time they got something like this right.

 

[dank69]

repost

 

[brandonb]

Not sure how this even got the supreme court. Don't the cops know the laws they are there to 'protect'? Ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[OutHouse]

yes the fourth is still respected.

 

[Oldgamer]

Not sure how this even got the supreme court. Don't the cops know the laws they are there to 'protect'? Ignorance is not an excuse.

Did you read the article? It tells you how it got to the supreme court. Major police misconduct with regard to illegally searching peoples cell phones without warrant and 'made up" probable cause, and now this just gave a major blow to police officers pulling this shit.

 

[Jaskalas]

yes the fourth is still respected.

Tell that to the Feds.

 

[Zebo]

SC has so much to overturn will takes decades if the presidents/feds even listen.

 

[Scotteq]

yes the fourth is still respected.

I am sorry Sir. There must be some mistake, since you clearly must have meant 'The Fourth is still a Doormat'.

Autocorrect issue, perhaps?

 

[hal2kilo]

I am sorry Sir. There must be some mistake, since you clearly must have meant 'The Fourth is still a Doormat'.

Autocorrect issue, perhaps?

Piss testing next? I'm trying to stiffle myself from laughing out loud.

 

[PokerGuy]

A good ruling, and glad to see it was unanimous rather than the usual good guys versus the merry band of 4 idiots (sotomayor et al) we see so often. With 5-4 rulings like that, it means it's just one additional stupid appointment by obummer away from going the other way, this seems more solid.

 

[nickbits]

does this apply to the border patrol (cbp)?

 

[brycejones]

does this apply to the border patrol (cbp)?

Probably not given other rulings on that subject already about the "unique" nature of crossing the boarder and the CBP's powers.

 

[RampantAndroid]

does this apply to the border patrol (cbp)?

All laws are out the window when you cross the US border, IIRC.

 

[DCal430]

Remember this does NOT apply to warrentless tracking using cell data or cellular GPS.

 

[MrPickins]

All laws are out the window when you cross the US border, IIRC.

The problem is that many Border Patrol checkpoints are tens of miles in from the border.

The Falfurrias checkpoint is 70 miles from the border. I have to pass through it coming back from visiting family in the Rio Grande Valley, even though I don't go to Mexico.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The problem is that many Border Patrol checkpoints are tens of miles in from the border.

The Falfurrias checkpoint is 70 miles from the border. I have to pass through it coming back from visiting family in the Rio Grande Valley, even though I don't go to Mexico.

Then you refuse those checkpoints. If they force you (doubtful) you take them to court and we see a SCOTUS case.

 

[gevorg]

Good.

Next: videotaping police.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Good.

Next: videotaping police.

already approved in a circuit court case; precedent is set, and it's likely to remain unless SCOTUS sees fit to take a case to hear it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Good finally a proper decision. Hobby Lobby should come in soon also.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Probably not given other rulings on that subject already about the "unique" nature of crossing the boarder and the CBP's powers.

Three quarters of that border security show goes something like this

BG- Are you here to work?
Dude- No..just vacation
BG- You only brought 20 bucks with you, how did you intend to get by
Dude- I'm handy
BG- That may be, let's take a look at your phone
BG- We looked at your conversations with your new employer
Dude- Ya but..
BG- Denied access

 

[blankslate]

-snip-.

Way to take a ruling in a case that clearly had only one correct way to rule given the 4th Amendment that even Justices on the opposite sides of the political spectrum could unanimously rule properly...

and turn it into a partisan shit sandwich in an otherwise good news thread.


....