Cellphones Can’t Be Searched Without a Warrant, Supreme Court Rules
Source: New York Times
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.
The court heard arguments in April in two cases on the issue, but issued a single decision.
The first case, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. The police found loaded guns in his car and, on inspecting Mr. Rileys smartphone, entries they associated with a street gang.
Read more: http://nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html
marble falls
(56,371 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,329 posts)in the era (since Ed Meese) of the eroding 4th amendment.
rocktivity
(44,555 posts)A victory in the war of warrantless domestic syping!
rocktivity
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Spouting Horn
(338 posts)This is about the police taking your cel phone, plugging it in to one of their devices, and uploading all your info into it.
NSA? Business as usual.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)grabbing your private info. Why should the NSA get a pass?
christx30
(6,241 posts)most likely, not abide by any court ruling that is not in their favor.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)24601
(3,940 posts)NSA is not taking custody of a cell phone and going through all the contents. The FAA Section 215 provisions getting business records (numbers, times, durations - without identifying data). The next step - going into ID information and any content does need a warrant.
Plus the SCOTUS opinion provided that searches related to security interests were still allowed.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Probably trying to protect Clarence Thomas.. realizing oh.. wait,, warrantless searches means their phones can be potentially searched and used against them too, better rule in favor of the Constitution then.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)may also be construed as protected free speech under the first amendment.
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)They'll get caught slipping sometimes and I want the laws on the books to drop the hammer.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)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!
7962
(11,841 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Bet no one thought of that!
Have fun in the jail cell.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)But now they won't be able to search your cell just because your license plate shows last year's tags.
This is a good decision.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)iandhr
(6,852 posts)In this case.
"Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. The police found loaded guns in his car."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html
I assume that Probable Cause for an arrest and probably wouldn't be to difficult to convince a judge to grant a warrant for a search.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Apparently the abridgment our civil liberties DOES have limits.