:o Save us Rand Paul!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/20/doj_seeks_supreme_court_approval_for_warrantless_cellphone_searches.html
Quote
DOJ Seeks Supreme Court Approval for Warrantless Cellphone Searches
By Ryan Gallagher
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013, at 4:13 PM
Should cops have the right to search through your cellphone without a warrant if you get arrested? The Justice Department thinks so.
In a petition to the Supreme Court filed last week, the government argues that it should be allowed to rifle through the phones of arrested suspects because having to apply for a warrant could thwart their ability to bring criminals to justice. The DOJ is asking the court to weigh in on the matter after the First Circuit of Appeals ruled earlier this year that police should have obtained a warrant when searching the phone of a suspected Massachusetts crack dealer back in 2007.
Like the issue of cellphone location tracking, searching phones is another area where courts have issued conflicting judgments, and the law seems to be out of step with the technology. The DOJ says in the Supreme Court petition that, in drug trafficking cases especially, law enforcement officials need quick warrantless access to handsets in order to identify the arrestee and to obtain communications records. It argues that having to wait any length of time could allow criminals or their associates to remotely access their phones to delete data. Officers could use a signal-blocking Faraday Cage phone pouch to prevent this from happening, the DOJ admits, but it claims forcing authorities to "traipse about" with signal-blocking bags for this purpose would be too much of a burden.
The crux of the DOJ's argument is that it would be "anomalous" to provide special Fourth Amendment protections for cellphones when it says this standard does not apply to arrestees' briefcases, purses, diaries, or letters. However, cellphones today can carry large troves of personal data, and that distinguishes them from conventional purses or diaries. Indeed, forensic technology available to the cops enables them to extract all kinds of information from phones: call logs, contacts, text messages and emails, photos and videos, passwords, location data, audio recordings, and more.
If a precedent were set that cellphones could be searched without a warrant, it could raise substantial civil liberties concerns. Could protesters arrested for demonstrating on Wall Street, for instance, have their phones confiscated and mined for data? The authorities clearly have a legitimate desire to track down serious criminals, and warrantless searches of phones in serious cases no doubt can assist them with that. But if the legal standard is low, the danger is that the power will be open to abuse.
Crucially, the Massachusetts case would not necessarily allow for substantive consideration of these issues. The phone the police searched was a "primitive" cellphone, according to analysis by law professor Orin Kerr, which means that if the court were to take up the DOJ's petition it would be handing down a ruling without having to weigh how modern smartphone technology has radically changed the types of data we carry. For that reason, as Kerr suggests, the court may be better advised to take up a case involving a smartphone instead.
It was so much easier back in the days of analog cellular. Stoopid digital technology. :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 06:55:12 PM
Quote
Officers could use a signal-blocking Faraday Cage phone pouch to prevent this from happening, the DOJ admits, but it claims forcing authorities to "traipse about" with signal-blocking bags for this purpose would be too much of a burden.
Or you could just pull the battery. I'm sure that's too much of a burden, too. Or maybe the perp has some sort of James Bond-esque self destruct device wired to the battery. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 06:59:55 PM
It was so much easier back in the days of analog cellular. Stoopid digital technology. :mad:
I'd like to beat Tim with a rotary phone. A red one.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2013, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 06:59:55 PM
It was so much easier back in the days of analog cellular. Stoopid digital technology. :mad:
I'd like to beat Tim with a rotary phone. A red one.
Only if your wife gets to watch! :perv:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2013, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 06:59:55 PM
It was so much easier back in the days of analog cellular. Stoopid digital technology. :mad:
I'd like to beat Tim with a rotary phone. A red one.
Only if your wife gets to watch! :perv:
She hates you too.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 06:55:12 PM
cellphones today can carry large troves of personal data, and that distinguishes them from conventional purses or diaries.
I'd comment on the content of the article, but this seemed to be a really poor comparison by the author. Diaries can't carry large troves of personal data?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2013, 07:33:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 06:55:12 PM
cellphones today can carry large troves of personal data, and that distinguishes them from conventional purses or diaries.
I'd comment on the content of the article, but this seemed to be a really poor comparison by the author. Diaries can't carry large troves of personal data?
Yeah, that's part of the argument when it comes to search and seizure of smartphones; the cops are arguing that they're no different than address books, little black books, diaries, ledgers, documents or wallets on the person, which have been admissible for ages, they're just another form of personal property.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 07:25:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2013, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 06:59:55 PM
It was so much easier back in the days of analog cellular. Stoopid digital technology. :mad:
I'd like to beat Tim with a rotary phone. A red one.
Only if your wife gets to watch! :perv:
Now there's an interesting scenario.
Child Bride takes one for the team I think Boner.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2013, 07:52:29 PM
Child Bride takes one for the team I think Boner.
She also hates you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2013, 07:36:09 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2013, 07:33:27 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2013, 06:55:12 PM
cellphones today can carry large troves of personal data, and that distinguishes them from conventional purses or diaries.
I'd comment on the content of the article, but this seemed to be a really poor comparison by the author. Diaries can't carry large troves of personal data?
Yeah, that's part of the argument when it comes to search and seizure of smartphones; the cops are arguing that they're no different than address books, little black books, diaries, ledgers, documents or wallets on the person, which have been admissible for ages, they're just another form of personal property.
I get that. I tend to think smartphones are different and a warrant should be required (at least beyond recent phone, text, and internet records reviewed for good reason), but for the author to make a statement that diaries can't carry large troves of personal data--that just doesn't seem factually correct.
DoJ :lol:
Nigga, please. I didn't even stick around long enough for a fucking t-shirt.
Now go write a speeding ticket on a Spec-4, Base Boy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 21, 2013, 05:46:28 AM
Nigga, please. I didn't even stick around long enough for a fucking t-shirt.
Now go write a speeding ticket on a Spec-4, Base Boy.
DV's and DUI's chuckle head. DV's are easily are most common call.
The rule the DOJ is relying on dates to 1974 and arose in the context of paint chips on the perps clothing. But the language used by the Court was very broad and would appear to sweep in an item on the suspect's person at the time of the arrest. Of course the Court in 74 wasn't considering the technological context of present day smartphones.
I'd tend to side with the DoJ view on this. I don't see why phones should be special.