General Discussion

Purveyor

(29,876 posts) Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:17 PM Jun 2014

Cops See Reason for Concern in Landmark Cellphone Ruling

By Erin McClam

Civil libertarians hailed the Supreme Court decision on police searches of cellphones as a landmark for privacy in the digital age — but the cops themselves say it could tie their hands during investigations.

The justices ruled unanimously that police almost always need a warrant to go through the cellphone of someone they arrest.

Because phones today hold such vast and personal stores of information, the court held, searching them without a warrant is different from going through, say, the glove compartment of an arrestee.

“We have entered a new world, but, as the court today recognized, our old values still apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through the intimate details of our private lives,” said Stephen R. Shapiro, the ACLU national legal director.

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, a Democrat who has been sharply critical of the National Security Agency’s data collection, said he hoped to use the ruling to push for even greater digital privacy protection.

more...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cops-see-reason-concern-landmark-cellphone-ruling-n140771

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cops See Reason for Concern in Landmark Cellphone Ruling (Original Post) Purveyor Jun 2014 OP

I assume... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #1

Yes I believe you are correct and they call it the "No Knock Policy" Bandit Jun 2014 #3

Yep, there were even comments about putting the phone in jeff47 Jun 2014 #8

I oppose all union representation for law enforcement. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #2

Of course they're concerned... TreasonousBastard Jun 2014 #4

If the police have a legitimate reason for accessing a cellphone, bluesbassman Jun 2014 #5

Lazy bums do not want the rules to apply to them. Dawson Leery Jun 2014 #6

The Fourth Amendment is very clear... bluesbassman Jun 2014 #7

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)

1. I assume...

Reply to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:33 PM

Jun 2014

and I could be wrong, that if a cop feels there is something suspicious in the phone's photos or call log, that they can legally seize the phone (not check it) until a warrant arrives to prevent the suspect from deleting information. My understanding is that police can enter a domicile without first receiving a warrant if they believe that evidence is being destroyed.

Am I correct on that?

Bandit

(21,475 posts)

3. Yes I believe you are correct and they call it the "No Knock Policy"

Reply to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:53 PM

Jun 2014

Supposedly they must be in pursuit, but we know how that goes.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

8. Yep, there were even comments about putting the phone in

Reply to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:41 PM

Jun 2014

something like a Faraday bag to prevent remote wiping of the phone while they got the warrant.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)

2. I oppose all union representation for law enforcement.

Reply to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 04:38 PM

Jun 2014

"Pasco, of the Fraternal Order of Police, said police would be sure to follow the new rules. But he said he was “pretty untroubled” by the idea of police going through the information in a suspect’s phone."

Go to Hell!

http://www.nationinstitute.org/blog/nationbooks/2492/still_breaking_rank%3A_norm_stamper_on_the_rise_of_para-military_policing/

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)

4. Of course they're concerned...

Reply to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:09 PM

Jun 2014

it affects how they see their job.

But, tough shit.

bluesbassman

(19,371 posts)

5. If the police have a legitimate reason for accessing a cellphone,

Reply to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:15 PM

Jun 2014

I doubt they'd have trouble getting a warrant from a judge. This just makes them do their job correctly. Gee, what a concept.

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)

6. Lazy bums do not want the rules to apply to them.

Reply to bluesbassman (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:19 PM

Jun 2014

bluesbassman

(19,371 posts)

7. The Fourth Amendment is very clear...

Reply to Dawson Leery (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 05:28 PM

Jun 2014

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects (Founding Fathers had no way of anticipating cellphones, but they certainly covered it here), against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And it provides for an avenue to assist law enforcement to do their jobs. That this was even a question before the SCOTUS highlights just how lazy AND arrogant LE has become.

Reply to this discussion