So what happens to everyone that has been arrested and convicted based on this in the past? Are they suddenly able to appeal?
Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
151–160 of 161 posts
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#152Wow--in some jurisdictions the whole process of getting a warrant is done remotely anyway:
> Recent technological advances similar to those discussed here have, in addition, made the process of obtaining a warrant itself more efficient. See McNeely, 569 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11–12); id., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip op., at 8) (describing jurisdiction where “police officers can e-mail warrant requests to judges’ iPads [and] judges have signed such warrants and e-mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”).
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Conservative" generally means "skeptical of change". So it depends on how you look at it. I'd call myself conservative, and I want to conserve my 4th Amendment rights as I move from carrying papers to carrying digital data. So you can say "the world has changed and now we have to protect cell phones" to say it's a progressive position, or "people still carry information and the government still can't search it witho…
"Conservative" refers to the vague party/ideology that more smoothly (than "liberalism", that is) allows for-profit coroprations to co-opt the government to achieve the regulatory situation for maximal wealth accumulation. It refers to nothing else. To pretend otherwise is to further facilitate the maximal wealth accumulation.
Is there an adjective you use as (obviously incomplete) shorthand for your political viewpoints? Because I'm sure it could be similarly redefined using only its negative outcomes.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the "no rights zone" only applies to non-USPERs outside of U.S. soil. NSA might reasonably be able to claim that they didn't know a given email address used outside the U.S. actually belongs to a U.S. person, but they'd have a much harder argument claiming that a phone issued to a U.S. area code didn't reasonably belong to a U.S. person, even if used overseas.
He meant that the border police can search you, your car, your phone, without a warrant, as long as you are within a radius of 100 miles from the border. That's named the 'constitution free zone'
> as long as you are within a radius of 100 miles from the border.
The rule is more nuanced than that. Until you cross all border control points then you can still be searches as if you were crossing a border. The rule you're talking about is that these border control points can be within 100 miles from the border to allow for efficiency of operation of border controls. Imagine if literally every border crossing to Canada had to have a dedicated CBP outpost manned every hour that the road itself is open.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this ruling leave that possibility open? What does "no search without warrant" leave open to this interpretation? Are you suggesting that police would be able to make an "in plain view" argument on unlocked phones?
Finally, law enforcement’s remaining concerns in a particular case might be addressed by responding in a targeted manner to urgent threats of remote wiping, see Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U. S. ___, ___, or by taking action to disable a phone’s locking mechanism in order to secure the scene, see Illinois v. McAr- thur, 531 U. S. 326, 331–333. Pp. 12–15. I believe the idea is that they can try to disable the lock in ord…
Thanks for the explanation.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I practice law elsewhere, but if I were a lawyer for the NSA, I would be scared after reading this opinion. Some of its reasoning about cell phones is directly applicable to the NSA's reported invasions of Americans' cell phones, indefinite collection of all Americans' call logs, and other matters. Admittedly, the Court tends to defer more to the executive branch in national security contexts than in criminal ones li…
Not really, the NSA's actions were deemed to not be a search and as such would not fall under the same reasoning used in this case. If you read this ruling about cell phones Roberts made it clear they were declaring the officer's actions to be a search, hence requiring the warrant.
No - the Supreme Court has not ruled on any of the NSA's recently disclosed programs. So they haven't had the chance to say whether they're searches.
And on that threshold question of whether any NSA surveillance programs are "searches" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court would ask if a challenged program violates American citizens' "reasonable expectation of privacy." Much in this opinion would be directly relevant to that question.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, if resources were unlimited. But they're not, so you have to pick and choose. You're right that option #2 can work: EFF has represented me and a dozen or so other plaintiffs in a case where we won at the Supreme Court, and the ACLU has represented me in two cases. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admit the possibility of winning is real. :) But if you argue for option #1, history matters: what significant pro-pri…
Also, as a politicker, I can do much more when devs produce a 'crisis situation' where the existing law is provably, laughably out of date due to technological change. Never neglect legislation (incumbents won't) but definitely focus on #3.
Interesting point! I like your way of thinking, though (this is the curmudgeon in me), I'd also suggest looking at some 'crisis situations' and legislative responses:
* Porn exists on the Internet! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. That became the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
* Images of adult porn actors can be morphed to look like minors! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. That became the Child Pornography Prevention Act.
* U.S. citizens can use encryption that can't be easily broken by FedGov! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. That became the bill approved by one House of Representatives committee, which did not become law.
* Spam exists! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. Except the Can-Spam act actually legalized spam with opt-out mechanisms and overruled state laws that actually did ban it.
* Internet piracy exists! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. The No Electronic Theft Act made it a federal felony punishable by years in prison to share a copy of, say, Microsoft Office with your friend.
* Gambling exists on the Internet! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT. That became the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.
* Porn still exists on the Internet! LET'S PASS A LAW BANNING IT IN SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES. That became the Children’s Internet Protection Act.
* U.S. citizens still can use encryption that can't be easily broken! LET'S PASS A LAW REQUIRING SURVEILLANCE BACKDOORS IN SOCIAL NETWORKS, EMAIL PROVIDERS, PHOTO SHARING STARTUPS, ETC. That became the FBI's draft legislation; my article disclosing details in 2012 is here: http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites...
Politicians are reactionary. Some of the above laws did not get enacted or were struck down; others are on the books today. We shouldn't count on congresscritters to do the right thing when the law is provably, laughably out of date. In fact, generally they do exactly the wrong thing. :)
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Conservative" refers to the vague party/ideology that more smoothly (than "liberalism", that is) allows for-profit coroprations to co-opt the government to achieve the regulatory situation for maximal wealth accumulation. It refers to nothing else. To pretend otherwise is to further facilitate the maximal wealth accumulation.
Is there an adjective you use as (obviously incomplete) shorthand for your political viewpoints? Because I'm sure it could be similarly redefined using only its negative outcomes.
No, there isn't.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Conservative" refers to the vague party/ideology that more smoothly (than "liberalism", that is) allows for-profit coroprations to co-opt the government to achieve the regulatory situation for maximal wealth accumulation. It refers to nothing else. To pretend otherwise is to further facilitate the maximal wealth accumulation.
Not only is that unhelpful, it's also untrue. It doesn't capture the goals of the tea party movement for example. It's true the outcomes of conservative ideology are often what you say, but that doesn't make it a goal anymore than the fact that there are welfare cheats makes cheating on welfare a goal of progressive politics.
"It doesn't capture the goals of the tea party movement for example." It doesn't have to, it just has to "capture" the reason that the movement gained popularity over any other movement. Theories explain why phenomena occur, it doesn't matter if the people who are part of the phenomena disagree.
Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
He meant that the border police can search you, your car, your phone, without a warrant, as long as you are within a radius of 100 miles from the border. That's named the 'constitution free zone'
> as long as you are within a radius of 100 miles from the border. The rule is more nuanced than that. Until you cross all border control points then you can still be searches as if you were crossing a border. The rule you're talking about is that these border control points can be within 100 miles from the border to allow for efficiency of operation of border controls. Imagine if literally every border crossing to C…
That is false. Border Patrol claims the right to enter private property and homes of citizens without a warrant within 100 miles of the border.