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

[jimmy olsen]

Woo!

http://online.wsj.com/articles/high-court-police-usually-need-warrants-for-cell-phone-data-1403706571

High Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cell Phone Data
Unanimous Supreme Court Says Privacy Interests Outweigh Police Convenience


By
Jess Bravin
connect
Updated June 25, 2014 10:47 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching mobile devices after arresting someone.

The court, in a unanimous ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, said both the quantity and quality of information contained in modern handheld hand-heldis constitutionally protected.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected law-enforcement arguments that cellphones fell under a longstandlong-standingn to the warrant requirement that allows police to search the contents of suspects' pockets to make sure they don't carry weapons or destroy evidence.

"Modern cellphones are not jaren'tther technological convenience," Chief Justice Roberts wrote. "With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life,'" he wrote.

"Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant," the chief justice added.

Lower courts had been split on the question, and the justices themselves have been grappling with the bounds of privacy in the digital age, sometimes tilting toward government, other times toward the individual.

[DGuller]

Wow.  That's not the kind of ruling you expect from this Supreme Court.

[derspiess]

Seedy disapproves.

[Valmy]

Wow.  That's not the kind of ruling you expect from this Supreme Court.

Yep.  I am amazed it was unanimous.  A nice victory.

[KRonn]

Oh well, now the cops can just through NSA instead.   

[Berkut]

Wow.  That's not the kind of ruling you expect from this Supreme Court.

No kidding. It seems much to sane and obvious.

[Admiral Yi]

"Modern cellphones are not jaren'tther technological convenience," Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Damn good  point.

I thought there were good arguments on both sides and am suprised by the unanimous decision.

[CountDeMoney]

Seedy disapproves.

Yes, I do.

Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse," Roberts wrote.

Oh, bullshit.  Scrolling through the directory of a suspect's cell phone found on his person is no different from thumbing through his little black book. Next time turn on the 4 digit security code before you get arrested.

Although I liked Clarence Thomas's quote during the arguments--

[Admiral Yi]

I get it.

[derspiess]

CALLED IT

[CountDeMoney]

You are an absolute Kreskin for remembering my arguments on the topic in the extensive discussion thread we had on it just a few months ago, dermemory.

[The Brain]

Chief Justice Roberts rejected law-enforcement arguments that cellphones fell under a longstandlong-standingn to the warrant requirement that allows police to search the contents of suspects' pockets to make sure they don't carry weapons or destroy evidence.

Does law-enforcement even try anymore?

[derspiess]

You are an absolute Kreskin for remembering my arguments on the topic in the extensive discussion thread we had on it just a few months ago, dermemory.

I don't recall any such thread.  I'm pretty sure I never read it.  I just know that SEEDY HATES FREEDOM

[Barrister]

I stand firmly with Seedy.  What a dumb decision.

[Valmy]

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.