Well done to the Supreme Court.

[kentonio]

Supreme Court Makes Sweeping Endorsement Of Digital Privacy

The Supreme Court ruled to limit police searches of arrestee's cell phones without warrants, making a sweeping endorsement for digital privacy.

The court reversed the decision of the California appellate court in Riley v. California on Wednesday. According to SCOTUSblog, the high court's decision was unanimous, though Justice Samuel Alito "filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment."

Below, more from the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The court said cellphones are powerful devices unlike anything else police may find on someone they arrest. Because the phones contain so much information, police must get a warrant before looking through them, Chief Justice John Robert said.

The Supreme Court previously had ruled that police could empty a suspect's pockets and examine whatever they find to ensure officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.

The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

But the defendants in these cases, backed by civil libertarians, librarians and news media groups, argued that cellphones, especially smartphones, are increasingly powerful computers that can store troves of sensitive personal information.

In the cases decided Wednesday, one defendant carried a smartphone, while the other carried an older flip phone.

"Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life," Roberts said. The court's answer to what police must do before searching phones is simple: "Get a warrant," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5529368.html

They've made some truly horrible decisions over the last few years, but this time they've done something good and deserve a thumbs up for it. Good work!

[Lorizael]

I certainly don't mind the ruling, but I do wonder at the justification for it. If I happen to carry the same information that a cellphone has but in, say, a notebook, will I be granted the same protection? If not, why not?

[kentonio]

Cellphone can give access to a host of remote services. Just because you have your phone on you when you're arrested, does that give the police a right to read your emails, personal conversations in the form of text messages and emails, view years of posts on Facebook accounts etc, without any kind of warrant? This ruling was LONG overdue.

[Sava]

I certainly don't mind the ruling, but I do wonder at the justification for it. If I happen to carry the same information that a cellphone has but in, say, a notebook, will I be granted the same protection? If not, why not?

I wonder if it depends what kind of information was in the notebook. Say you're a psychologist and are carrying patient information. Say you're the owner of a business carrying around your financial records.

I like this whole warrant thing.

[Lorizael]

Cellphone can give access to a host of remote services. Just because you have your phone on you when you're arrested, does that give the police a right to read your emails, personal conversations in the form of text messages and emails, view years of posts on Facebook accounts etc, without any kind of warrant? This ruling was LONG overdue.

That doesn't answer my central question, though. What if I'm arrested while I happen to be taking a bunch of old, important personal documents to my storage unit? Should I be afforded extra protection just because I happen to be carrying a lot of personal data?

[Sava]

That doesn't answer my central question, though. What if I'm arrested while I happen to be taking a bunch of old, important personal documents to my storage unit? Should I be afforded extra protection just because I happen to be carrying a lot of personal data?

Should? Yes.

Do you? I dunno.

[kentonio]

Should? Yes.

Do you? I dunno.

Yeah, that. If the cops need to root around through your private papers to prove you've done something wrong, they shouldn't have a problem with asking a judge to ok that.

[Lorizael]

/me shrugs. I'm fine with that idea. I just doubt this ruling applies so broadly.

[kentonio]

Me too. Ah well, baby steps.

[Felch]

Just remember guys:

Roberts shot down the Obama administration's argument that searching a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable” from physical searches.

In case you ever think that a new President means anything is going to change. They're all lying *******s.

[Dauphin]

I certainly don't mind the ruling, but I do wonder at the justification for it. If I happen to carry the same information that a cellphone has but in, say, a notebook, will I be granted the same protection? If not, why not?

According to the ruling, you would get such protection.


"Most people cannot lug around every piece of mail they have received for the past several months, every picture they have taken, or every book or article they have read—nor would they have any reason to attempt to do so. And if they did, they would have to drag behind them a trunk of the sort held to require a search warrant in Chadwick, supra, rather than a container the size of the cigarette package in Robinson"

[Lorizael]

Cool.

[-Jrabbit]

Just remember guys:

Roberts shot down the Obama administration's argument that searching a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable” from physical searches.

In case you ever think that a new President means anything is going to change. They're all lying *******s.

This.

Because administration = politician = a$$hole = lying liar who lies

All of them.

[Sava]

In case you ever think that a new President means anything is going to change. They're all lying *******s.

Liberals and conservatives generally agree on this principle. We could probably be a force for good. However, the whole surrendering responsibility of "let the free market decide" is absolutely unacceptable to me.

I want better government, not no government (or government so small, it's ineffective).

[Berzerker]

I want better government

so why are you happy with this ruling?

the court has just made it harder to bust criminals