Supreme Court Rules Unanimously: Police Need Warrants to Search Cell Phone Data

[Barrister]

I stand firmly with Seedy.  What a dumb decision.

Yeah how idiotic that the Constitution should impact law enforcement.  It is not like it is relevant to our legal system in anyway.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

SInce it talks only about unreasonable searches, clearly some searches are reasonable.

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

[The Brain]

Jesus Christ, why not just wall the whole country and call it gaol?

[Ed Anger]

Escape from New York is a documentary to Beeb.

[CountDeMoney]

SInce it talks only about unreasonable searches, clearly some searches are reasonable.

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

Valmy just doesnt do moral outrage well in the off-season.

I do find it iironically that Roberts elevates these digital devices to a plateau beyond other legally-defined technology, considering this is the guy with the very analog opinion that, when it comes to the issue of campaign finance, the only kind of political corruption is quid pro quo corruption.

[Berkut]

I stand firmly with Seedy.  What a dumb decision.

Yeah how idiotic that the Constitution should impact law enforcement.  It is not like it is relevant to our legal system in anyway.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

SInce it talks only about unreasonable searches, clearly some searches are reasonable.

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

If you don't understand the difference between the amount of data available in a book carried on your person and someones smartphone, then...well, no, forget that. It is not possible for any human being to not understand the difference.

[CountDeMoney]

You mean like the difference between your bank account PIN in your cell phone, as opposed to it written on the back of a business card in your wallet?

Let's not fall for the idolatry of technology when it comes to very basic premises of a person's right to privacy at the time of arrest.  These are not monumental, paradigm-changig legal differences here.

Besides, there's no obligation for you to carry around your personal data everywhere you go in a cell phone.

[Valmy]

SInce it talks only about unreasonable searches, clearly some searches are reasonable.

That is some pretty fantastic cherry picking.  That is not the only requirement.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sure they can search my cell phone provided they describe exactly what it is they are taking and how it is relevant to the crime.  That is what the Constitution says.  So how does downloading gigabytes of personal information possibly fall under the category of describing the things to be seized?  They have no idea so they will just take everything.  If you can download everything in my cell phone you might as well just come in my house and take everything you can find just in case something may be found.  And bear in mind I need to have committed no crime here, this has been done for simple traffic stops.  What on your cell phone is relevant to a traffic stop?  I see nothing reasonable about that.  That is called fishing and has already been struck down by Supreme Court decisions FOR CENTURIES.

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

Because a cell phone does not just contain names and phone numbers.  But your question shows just why this nonsense needs to stop.  The logical conclusion is there is no limit to searching and seizing personal information.

[crazy canuck]

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

Because a little black book contains signficantly less data about a person's life than a cell phone.  For most people of a certain age if one has access to their cell phone one would have access to everything of record in their life.

If police can have access to all that information then the practical result is there is no such thing as an unreasonable search.

edit:  obvious point already made by others.

[Valmy]

Besides, there's no obligation for you to carry around your personal data everywhere you go in a cell phone.

Seriously?   Don't carry a cell phone or the cops could just take it and download everything at any time?  See this is what happens when we try to help out the cops with a little gray area like enabling them to search wallets and crap, they just abuse it all to fuck.  Why jump off the slippery slope so completely?  Recognize that we have a gray area, a place that is right up against the line, and go no farther.  Jesus fucking Christ.

[Barrister]

I stand firmly with Seedy.  What a dumb decision.

Yeah how idiotic that the Constitution should impact law enforcement.  It is not like it is relevant to our legal system in anyway.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

SInce it talks only about unreasonable searches, clearly some searches are reasonable.

It has been held for a long, long time that upon arrest police are entitled to go through someone's pockets.  As Seedy says if you have a little black book police can go through it - so why not a cellphone?

If you don't understand the difference between the amount of data available in a book carried on your person and someones smartphone, then...well, no, forget that. It is not possible for any human being to not understand the difference.

Searches are not justified based on how much (or how little) one can discover.  WE don't say "well you can search the car trunk because that's pretty small, but you can't search their house".

[Barrister]

Besides, there's no obligation for you to carry around your personal data everywhere you go in a cell phone.

Seriously?   Don't carry a cell phone or the cops could just take it and download everything at any time?  See this is what happens when we try to help out the cops with a little gray area like enabling them to search wallets and crap, they just abuse it all to fuck.  Why jump off the slippery slope so completely?  Recognize that we have a gray area, a place that is right up against the line, and go no farther.  Jesus fucking Christ.

Seedy's other example is better though - if you don't want police flipping through your phone put a password lock on it.

If you can't be bothered to do that then you clearly don't have a very big expectation of privacy on your cellphone.

[CountDeMoney]

So all you ZOMG MAH PHONE IS MORE IMPORTANT guys are qualifying search and seizure by quantity then?

Because a cell phone could concievably carry "more" than, say a notebook--even though some notebooks could be filled to the brim and a cellphone could be empty, so let's forget logical premises for a moment--that fundamentally alters the privacy definition of evidence?  Riiiight.

[CountDeMoney]

Besides, there's no obligation for you to carry around your personal data everywhere you go in a cell phone.

Seriously?   Don't carry a cell phone or the cops could just take it and download everything at any time?  See this is what happens when we try to help out the cops with a little gray area like enabling them to search wallets and crap, they just abuse it all to fuck.  Why jump off the slippery slope so completely?  Recognize that we have a gray area, a place that is right up against the line, and go no farther.  Jesus fucking Christ.

You don't like the concept of contributory negligence creeping into criminal law, move to Quebec

[Barrister]

So all you ZOMG MAH PHONE IS MORE IMPORTANT guys are qualifying search and seizure by quantity then?

Because a cell phone could concievably carry "more" than, say a notebook--even though some notebooks could be filled to the brim and a cellphone could be empty, so let's forget logical premises for a moment--that fundamentally alters the privacy definition of evidence?  Riiiight.

I mean police will often find very details handwritten drug "score sheets" on accuseds, while most times the cell phone only has a listing of a few text messages.

[The Minsky Moment]

So all you ZOMG MAH PHONE IS MORE IMPORTANT guys are qualifying search and seizure by quantity then?

Because a cell phone could concievably carry "more" than, say a notebook--even though some notebooks could be filled to the brim and a cellphone could be empty, so let's forget logical premises for a moment--that fundamentally alters the privacy definition of evidence?  Riiiight.

The US Supreme Court has never ruled IIRC that a notebook can be seized and examined pursuant to search incident to arrest.
The Fifth Circuit court of Appeals permmited the seizure of an address book in US v. Carrion, without any real discussion or analysis.  The 5th Circuit is a pretty conservative law and order court (esp. back then) and that case represents the outer reach of the search incident to arrest doctrine.  The Supreme Court actually cited that case yesterday without approving or disapproving so it is still somewhat of an open question.

The rationale behind search incident to arrest is that the police should have discretion to seize items on the person in the interest of security (because the suspect may have a weapon or dangerous object) or to preserve evidence from destruction.  IMO Carrion went beyond that rationale and was probably wrongly decided to the extent it permitted the address book to come in.

However, I also think the Court was right to make a distinction between a modern smart phone and other common physical objects.  The Fourth Amendment's core protection is to secure "papers" from unlawful search, and thus the Court has barred things like search and seizure of a footlocker near the suspect's person.  The Court's rationale was not based on the size and weight of the footlocker but on the intent of the owner to keep the information therein private.  If the footlocker had been shrunk to the size and weight of a phone, the result shouldn't change.  The reality is that many people today don't keep "papers" in paper; they keep them in the form of digital files contained in compact devices.  So either we turn the Fourth Amendment into an antiquarian curiousity or we interpret in light of technological realities.

In any case, as a former peace officer, you know this was a screw up.  The police could have easily seized the phone temporarily to prevent spolitation, then run to get the warrant, then get the same result.