I'm figuring they're protecting themselves (possibly Clarence Thomas, Scalia of illegal behavior) with this ruling. It's the only motivation I can think of for the unanimous ruling. I'm pleasantly surprised, but remain skeptical of their motivations.

This is a classic example of throwing the dog a bone. We the people gained just mostly a promise they would try not to look too closely at the scribbled down notes in our jail cell. This approach of the apparatchiks in putting padding on the bars of the surveillance state we live in isn't that helpful in my opinion.

I find as a general rule in life, that the best way to help something that larger than you that is also falling is to get out of it's way before it hits

my forhead is becoming misshapen from all of the in the past 15 years.

Thanks for the thread, Dawson Leery.

Still, the whole court said the cops must get a warrant.

K&R

"Wow."

The article isn't very helpful in explaining. There are apparently some circumstances in which they are saying such a warrantless search would be legal. I'd like to know what those circumstances are.

From the decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/231282850/13-132-8l9c)"

Such "exigency exemptions" can be pretty darned cooked up, under new rules, it would seem. The police were looking for a suspect who had bought cocaine from an undercover agent, who told them to look for him in the back right apartment of a building. Upon entering, the police smelled marijuana coming from the back left apartment. They knocked and then busted in, fearing whoever was in there would destroy evidence (d'oh--knock, listen, break the door down, while on the hunt for somebody entirely different). The Kentucky Supreme court ruled that the officers had created the "exigent circumstances" for the warrantless search and King's conviction, which they vacated. The Supreme Court reversed.

It's all about intent, and I guess you can always cook up a great scenario involving intent and exigency.

I'm very happy about this decision. But I worry the "exigency exemptions" can be creatively used by police to get around it.

If a witness said, "I heard him say he was going to text his partner the location of the bomb!" -- that would be exigent circumstances for that kind of search.

Kinda hard to say, "Your phone smells like pot, I need to check your text history." with a straight face.

shocked I tells you! knr

My problem has NEVER been with domestic surveillance -- my problem has always been with WARRANTLESS domestic surveillance!


rocktivity

very wrong that our Revolution was fought about. Talk about repeating history when we forget it. Yikes!

Only the government can take away your freedom, lock you up and kill you. That is the big difference.

The United States asserts that a search of all data tored on a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable” from searches of these sorts of physical items. Brief for United States in No. 13–212, p. 26. That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together. Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse. A conclusion that inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the
arrest itself may make sense as applied to physical items, but any extension of that reasoning to digital data has to rest on its own bottom.

. . . .
We also reject the United States’ final suggestion that officers should always be able to search a phone’s call log, as they did in Wurie’s case. The Government relies on Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735 (1979), which held that no warrant was required to use a pen register at telephone
company premises to identify numbers dialed by a particular caller. The Court in that case, however, concluded that the use of a pen register was not a “search” at all under the Fourth Amendment. See id., at 745–746. There is no dispute here that the officers engaged in a search of Wurie’s cell phone. Moreover, call logs typically contain more than just phone numbers; they include any identifying information that an individual might add, such as the label “my house” in Wurie’s case.
. . . .
Finally, at oral argument California suggested a different limiting principle, under which officers could search cell phone data if they could have obtained the same information from a pre-digital counterpart. See Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 13–132, at 38–43; see also Flores-Lopez, 670
F.3d, at 807 (“If police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy the owner’s address, they should be entitled to turn on a cell phone to learn its number.”). But the fact that a search in the pre-digital era could have turned up a photograph or two in a wallet does not justify a earch of thousands of photos in a digital gallery. The fact that someone could have tucked a paper bank statement in a pocket does not justify a search of every bank statement from the last five years. And to make matters worse, such an analogue test would allow law enforcement to search a range of items contained on a phone, even though people would be unlikely to carry such a variety of information in physical form. In Riley’s case, for example, it is implausible that he would have strolled around with video tapes, photo albums, and an address book all crammed into his pockets. But because each of those items has a pre-digital analogue, police under California’s proposal would be able to search a phone for all of those items—a significant
diminution of privacy.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

We shall see how this applies to the NSA surveillance, but I think the NSA needs to change its programs -- drastically.

or intended in Smith v Maryland, and it would be great if the court were to hold against at some point, but the current make-up of the court makes that hope somewhat iffy IMO, so I'd urge people to pressure Congress for a change rather than relying on the court for that

that mass metadata collection without a warrant, or we will have an open dictatorship.

The part of the decision that is promising is the recognition in it that times have changed since the Maryland case that the NSA is relying on in justifying the collection of metadata and other personal electronic data. It's good decision. We shall see. I did not expect the recognition that the NSA program exceeds the limits imposed by the Constitution to be this soon. We shall see.

I read the text of the decision and was astonished by the clear thinking and doubts of the excuses offered by the US Government and the Government of California. One of the excuses they used to allow the search of the cell phone was that the officer could learn about associates of the suspect who were coming to free their compatriot. The Justices utterly rejected this saying that the Government had offered no examples of this actually happening.

I mean, a complete slap down on the police state. If my knee wasn't hurting, I'd be doing a victory dance right now. Instead, I'll post the Hump Bot!

I Think I'm About To Show My Ignorance And Let Everyone

know how uninformed I am about "STUFF regarding what, when & where I can feel safe when it comes to using my PC, iPhone, land line, FaceBook, MySpace, InstaGram (does this exist?), Selfie, Smart TV AND whatever else is out there.

I DO know more things to list, but think the previous makes my point. But maybe some of the stuff I listed exists, which means I'm a TOTAL FAIL about waaaaaaay too much! I simply CAN'T keep up, I'm retired and don't have digital stuff hanging on my body everywhere I go!

I'm NOT that old, a Boomer yes but I grew up reading books, marching and being a political activist with "boots on the ground!" I also know all THAT stuff is outdated these days too. Still, while I was loud and vocal I don't remember being so paranoid and afraid of speaking out or even communicating over my phone with so much FEAR I feel now. Is it because I was young and reckless? I don't think so, but I did have LOTS of energy and believed being loud & exposed was going to help this country in a positive way. And I did drugs, played my music super loud (still do), went to sooooo many concerts and as they say was a "wild and crazy gal!" Had a favorite shirt, simply wore it out that said "I'll Try Anything Once, TWICE If I Like It!" I mean I was "hippie" with it!

But today, I can honestly say I'm afraid of what I say or text could be interpreted the wrong way and there's a possibility I'm going to get a knock on my door. Example: recently a person texted me about MJ and how I remembered it from the past, asking for the funny names we called it and some other stuff. I erased the text, got on my land line and called the person and got laughed at. It really IS funny when you think about it, and stupid too given what I just wrote. And why you ask do I STILL have a land line? Well, believe it or not I have friends who have husbands who DON'T DO ANYTHING with any kind of device, I mean a device with wires! Well, even that is outdated if you've seen the Direct TV ad with the woman in bedroom who HAS wires... wires are now outdated too!!!

Yes, in the year 2014 I know people who avoid this stuff like the plague. It actually costs me much more money to watch TV and keep a land line because my husband probably doesn't know what an ID & Password are! Doesn't care, won't touch this stuff!

So AFTER ALL this back story, I have OCD and ramble on and on to get to my point, please forgive. How safe am I talking, posting, texting anything that someone might interpret in the wrong way. I only use cell phone and PC for the most part, Facebook if I comment during tennis tournaments and my land line.

How closely am I being tracked? I said I had OCD, I'm not schizophrenic YET! But I will accept hearing my OCD is in complete over drive!

BOHICA! Bend Over Here It Comes Again...
Add to Journal Self-delete Edit post Reply to this post

The NSA surveillance has triggered a lot of similar reactions -- understandably. It's the surveillance that is wrong, not you.

Just take some deep breaths, close your eyes and let go of it. You are OK.

Been hearing more as day has gone on. I feel better about it now, but really never thought I would feel so paranoid living in America. Progress?? So they keep telling me!

the NSA and get all of the information they want anyway.

That is if the NSA didn't point them to the criminal in the first place.

I'm kidding, at least I hope I am. Finally a win for the little guy.

. . . penned by Justice Roberts:

Judges read like.

Seriously -- When was the last time there was a 9-0 vote on the Supreme Court?

What was it (I'm almost afraid to ask). Probably allowed Department Store Security to conduct cavity searches...

plus there are a lot of non-decision actions that might well be unanimous, such as refusing to take a case and letting the lower court ruling stand.

Clarence goes along with the majority, even when he's not speaking to them.

Ginny and Clarence? Can you imagine the incriminating stuff they could text about their work?

I think it's been common practice in many states for several years. Get a warrant! I'm sure there will be thousands of warrants issued every week to search cell phones, and probably already are thousands issued every week.

This is good news for Americans.

which one of you had the blackmail info on Fat Tony Scalia?

(humor, of course)

"The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find."

I seriously doubt that President Obama supported this kind of assault on privacy rights !

That's good news, but we have a long way to go to save our Constitution and bring it to life in our times.

The Constitution does not state explicitly that we have the right to marry whom we wish even if a state law says we can't marry someone of a different race. The Constitution does not mention marriage at all. It doesn't mention schools either but we know that the 14th Amendment requires that we all be treated as equals and therefore the government cannot deny us a service or right that it extends to anyone else.

The Constitution has to be interpreted to meet the times. I'm very happy about this decision and can't wait to read it.

Here is a summary:

Treating modern cellphones as gaping windows into nearly all aspects of the user’s life and private conduct, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ordered police to get a search warrant before examining the contents of any such device they take from a person they have arrested. Seeing an individual with a cellphone is such a common thing today, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., wrote, “the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”

The Court rejected every argument made to it by prosecutors and police that officers should be free to inspect the contents of any cellphone taken from an arrestee. It left open just one option for such searches without a court order: if police are facing a dire emergency, such as trying to locate a missing child or heading off a terrorist plot. But even then, it ruled, those “exigent” exceptions to the requirement for a search warrant would have to satisfy a judge after the fact.

The ruling was such a sweeping embrace of digital privacy that it even reached remotely stored private information that can be reached by a hand-held device — as in the modern-day data storage “cloud.” And it implied that the tracking data that a cellphone may contain about the places that an individual visited also is entitled to the same shield of privacy.

The Court’s ruling drew some suggestions by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to narrow its scope, but it did not accept those. The result was the broadest constitutional ruling on privacy in the face of modern technology since the Court’s ruling two Terms ago limiting police use of satellite-linked GPS tracking of a suspect’s movements by car.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/opinion-analysis-broad-cloak-of-privacy-for-cellphones/

We shall see what this portends for the NSA programs. I hope that those programs will be drastically modified soon and that penalties more severe than just barring evidence acquired in violation of the Constitution from trials will be imposed on those who would violate our privacy rights.

It seems like a definitive statement by the court that the information age requires an examination of privacy rights. While congress seems to ignore the information age exists at least one branch a government suggests the information age is going to require us to rethink classic bounds between private and public information.

But now they are not allowed to physically riffle through your cellphone after an arrest, but they are still more than welcome to access it from the cell providers side, without warrant or arrest?

Police and their kind do and get away with many things we might not like to think they would. They may or even may not want to do it, but it's their job, it's how they make a living inside that system we all are positioned into.

computing devices?

They do love them some Big Brother!