Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

Post by pionar » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:36 PM UTC

dan_bk wrote: post #66

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…

> 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.

Post by gnopgnip » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:39 PM UTC

nathanstitt wrote: post #27

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 progre…

Post by nolok » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 5:56 PM UTC

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…

Post by a3n » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:01 PM UTC

gnopgnip wrote: post #89

IgorPartola wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by rdrdss23 » Wed, Jun 25, 2014, 6:05 PM UTC

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…