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

21–30 of 161 posts

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

#21

Post by miked »

rayiner wrote: post #11

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…

> Alito concurring...That's very interesting language coming from conservative Chief Justice Roberts.

Your implication seems to be that conservatives are the ones pushing weak privacy laws. I'll grant that many conservatives have been weak on privacy protection, which is one of the reasons that I'm a libertarian. But the primary parties arguing here for nearly unlimited cell phone search were "The Obama administration and the state of California, both of which sought to justify cell phone searches...".

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/25/supreme-cour...

Not to mention that it was Bill Clinton who was behind the appalling push to expand no-knock raids by police for drug busts.

Even for pot smokers who didn't inhale.

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

#23

Post by CWuestefeld »

rayiner wrote: post #11

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…

I think the decision describes how it's not diminishing the scope of previous decisions. What's been decided here isn't contradictory to precedent it all, it just clarifies it with respect to issues that the earlier ones couldn't foresee.

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

#24

Post by rayiner »

miked wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #11

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…

> Alito concurring...That's very interesting language coming from conservative Chief Justice Roberts. Your implication seems to be that conservatives are the ones pushing weak privacy laws. I'll grant that many conservatives have been weak on privacy protection, which is one of the reasons that I'm a libertarian. But the primary parties arguing here for nearly unlimited cell phone search were "The Obama administratio…

That's not my implication at all. My point is simply that it's rare, for obvious reasons, for conservatives to invoke changes in the world as justification for, well anything.

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

#25

Post by [deleted] »

miked wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #11

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…

> Alito concurring...That's very interesting language coming from conservative Chief Justice Roberts. Your implication seems to be that conservatives are the ones pushing weak privacy laws. I'll grant that many conservatives have been weak on privacy protection, which is one of the reasons that I'm a libertarian. But the primary parties arguing here for nearly unlimited cell phone search were "The Obama administratio…

[deleted]

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

#26

Post by sramsay »

> cellphones 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.

Anyone else concerned that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States appears to believe that Mars is an inhabited planet?

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

#27

Post by nathanstitt »

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.

A warrant's has to also have legal justification, i.e. "reasonable suspicion". If it does not, that's one more thing that can be argued at trial, with the possibility that the search can be thrown out.

Of course, the only time that kind of stuff gets vigorously challenged is if the defendant has top-notch legal representation. Public defender's typically would rather just plea-bargain it out.

Still, it's great progress for keeping everything above board as much as possible.

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

#28

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #25
miked wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Alito concurring...That's very interesting language coming from conservative Chief Justice Roberts. Your implication seems to be that conservatives are the ones pushing weak privacy laws. I'll grant that many conservatives have been weak on privacy protection, which is one of the reasons that I'm a libertarian. But the primary parties arguing here for nearly unlimited cell phone search were "The Obama administratio…

[deleted]

[deleted]

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

#29

Post by dragonwriter »

sramsay wrote: post #26

> cellphones 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. Anyone else concerned that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States appears to believe that Mars is an inhabited planet?

I don't think you understand what the word "proverbial" means, which might be worrying, were you, rather than John Roberts, the Chief Justice.

There's plenty of things that bug me about John Roberts being CJ, but your complaint isn't one of them.

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

#30

Post by nknighthb »

dragonwriter wrote: post #29
sramsay wrote: post #26

> cellphones 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. Anyone else concerned that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States appears to believe that Mars is an inhabited planet?

I don't think you understand what the word "proverbial" means, which might be worrying, were you, rather than John Roberts, the Chief Justice. There's plenty of things that bug me about John Roberts being CJ, but your complaint isn't one of them.

If I were a student at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, it'd certainly be worrying to me that an Associate Professor of English at my school doesn't understand the word "proverbial".
Post reply on HN