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

81–90 of 161 posts

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

#81

Post by grecy »

tokipin wrote: post #18
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

And yet we see plenty of videos on YouTube where a person is arrested for resisting arrest and nothing else...

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

#82

Post by brightsize »

I wonder if this has any implications at all for the seizure and search of phones and other digital devices by border agents? I suspect the answer is "no" of course, since they're not exactly in the justice business like the police in theory are. But they they are (also in theory) subject to SCOTUS decisions AFAIK, and maybe this decision signals a new attitude towards digital device searches in general?

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

#83

Post by pdkl95 »

declan wrote: post #74

This is a solid decision that will curb abusive searches and help other Fourth Amendment litigation, including ongoing cases involving warrantless cell phone tracking. (That's because many of the concepts about the importance of mobile devices are true in the tracking context as well.) But it also shows how long it takes for the legal system to fix these problems. I wrote these articles over 7 years ago about how cop…

Option #4, All of the above.

Many of these issues are both technological problems and political problems. Neglecting either is not a particularly good strategy.

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

#84

Post by _nullandnull_ »

adventured wrote: post #67
_nullandnull_ wrote: post #46

The title is misleading. It should read "Warrantless cell phones searches illegal for people police arrest".

No the title still works. Police can't search your cell phone without a warrant. Police that arrest you can't search your cell phone without a warrant.

Retort removed. No point arguing semantics with someone who doesn't know how to use a comma.

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

#85

Post by pdkl95 »

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.

The value in requiring a warrant isn't about how hard they are to get. While they do server as a certain minimum standard (you have to at least make it sound ok), the big benefit is that they serve as a kind of governor (speed limiter) on the powers we give to police.

It's a lot harder to start a widespread, hard-to-undo abuse of power when you have to ask permission each time you exercise that power. A single abuse of power can be (hypothetically) remedied in court after the fact. Unfortunately, the situation changes when the problem grows to "general warrant" size. At that scale, you tend to need armies, not courts.

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

#86

Post by IgorPartola »

rayiner wrote: post #56
dan_bk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…

I guess I don't get the distinction in the comparison. Let me lay out a simple example:

a. I hold a picture on my mobile phone. I transmit this picture using the phone's built in radio to a friend of mine.

b. I hold a picture on my laptop. I transmit the picture to a friend using my internet connection provided by my ISP.

I get that the government cannot access my phone and pull the picture from it (that would be a warrantless search of both my person and my effects). However, once I send the picture into the world, why does it matter whether I used an undersea cable or a communication satellite or a carrier pidgin? If the Supreme Court rules that neither my phone nor any communication to/from it may be searched without a warrant, then it should follow almost immediately that the same rules should apply to any consumer communication device, no?

Edit: in both cases above, let's assume that my friend is not a US citizen and is not located in the US.

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

#87

Post by davidp »

dan_bk wrote: post #37
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…

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

For the same reason that French laws don't apply to German activities outside of France.

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

#88

Post by chenelson »

[deleted] wrote: post #71
dan_bk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But signals transmitted out into the world does not fit neatly into any of those four categories. Therein lies IMO one of the big issues with US justice: the law is interpreted literally. But the aim of the original law (what it attempted to protect or achieve, i.e. the citizens' privacy) is not really deemed relevant.

[deleted]

I thought the Founders were fighting against the so-called needs of law enforcement; so much so that the US literally exists because of heavy-handed governmental action.

The Fourth Amendment was intended to keep the the Founders' business interests secure, and prevent, say, search and seizure of Samuel Adams' smuggled goods.

This so-called "law enforcement need" is the creation of a few odd ducks such as Richard Nixon and Nancy Reagan, and has caused more damage to privacy than the NSA ever could.

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

#89

Post by gnopgnip »

IgorPartola wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…

I guess I don't get the distinction in the comparison. Let me lay out a simple example: a. I hold a picture on my mobile phone. I transmit this picture using the phone's built in radio to a friend of mine. b. I hold a picture on my laptop. I transmit the picture to a friend using my internet connection provided by my ISP. I get that the government cannot access my phone and pull the picture from it (that would be a w…

The government cannot legally access this picture either without a warrant.

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

#90

Post by Shivetya »

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.

Just make sure to LOCK your phone upon being stopped by the police. The ruling leaves open the possibility that cops may be allowed to disable locking software if the phone is unlocked and they take it.

So lock your phone immediately. Give remote wipe to a trusted family member if you are truly worried.

Post reply on HN