Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 161 posts

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#11

Post by rayiner »

Wow. It was 9-0 (Alito concurring). It's also not a narrowly-written opinion:

> Even less sophisticated phones like Wurie’s, which have already faded in popularity since Wurie was arrested in 2007, have been around for less than 15 years. Both phones are based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago, when Chimel and Robinson were decided.

Slip. Op. at 9.

It's not every day that a conservative Chief Justice writes an opinion predicated on a changing world diminishing the scope of earlier decisions.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#12

Post by bilbo0s »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #9

A great decision, IMO, and the only sane decision for e.g. traffic stops (a place where cell phone searches should never have been considered legal). It probably won't alter things appreciably for somebody who is being arrested, though. I can't imagine that warrant will be hard to get if the police have enough on you to put you in cuffs.

To be perfectly frank...

They don't even need that much at the rate most warrants are sworn out.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#14

Post by 4k » 

   Warrentless cellphone searches are reasonable if only it falls within a specific exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. See Kentucky vs King.
I looked up Kentucky vs King on wiki. TL;DR warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances [0] do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

So, does that mean if police knocked on my door suspecting I might delete sensitive data on my phone before they get to it, are they still allowed to do warrantless search of my cell phone?

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_...

EDIT: DO not start fucking downvoting just for the heck of it. May be I didn't understand it well, does that mean I can't ask a question here?

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#16

Post by executor14 »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #9

A great decision, IMO, and the only sane decision for e.g. traffic stops (a place where cell phone searches should never have been considered legal). It probably won't alter things appreciably for somebody who is being arrested, though. I can't imagine that warrant will be hard to get if the police have enough on you to put you in cuffs.

For minor offenses, probably hard to get a warrant to search your phone. At least is another road block.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#17

Post by davidrhunt »

acangiano wrote: post #6

This passage is just beautiful: "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to t…

Agreed. I also really like this passage later on:

"These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#18

Post by tokipin »

4k wrote: post #14

Warrentless cellphone searches are reasonable if only it falls within a specific exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. See Kentucky vs King. I looked up Kentucky vs King on wiki. TL;DR warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances [0] do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment…

that would seem to be a similar argument to "if someone denies a police officer entry to their home, that means they're suspicious and therefore there is probable cause" which isn't valid

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#19

Post by trose »

bruceb wrote: post #2

One goes against us (Aereo), one goes for us today. The reasoning for this decision is pretty easy to understand and only takes a minute or so to read the first two pages.

Honestly, Aereo had it coming. You can't just take someone else's content and stream it to other people for profit. I know it was a great service and we all enjoyed it but I'm not going to sit around and pretend what they were doing was legal. If the "victim" of their service was anything else besides the big nasty cable companies I dont think anyone would be singing their praises.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#20

Post by nknighthb »

bruceb wrote: post #2

One goes against us (Aereo), one goes for us today. The reasoning for this decision is pretty easy to understand and only takes a minute or so to read the first two pages.

Aereo is such a specialized case about such a specialized law for a dying ecosystem that it's hard to care at all.

This case is of actual relevance to people who won't be dead in the next 30 years, and will remain relevant long after.

Post reply on HN