1. Stocks rebound yesterday to plug their losing streak, metals pull back
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Weds Morning! Gold is down 3 to 1252, while Silver is down 8 to 18.16. Crude is up 27 to 4864. The USD is up 9 to 9964.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 3/25/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1248.50-- UP 18.30 Silver $17.75-- UP 34 Oil $47.97-- DOWN 134 TICS USD $99.42 -- DOWN 66 tics

Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant

Discussion in 'Coffee Shack (Daily News/Economy)' started by Goldhedge, Mar 19, 2017.



  1. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    25,945
    Likes Received:
    27,793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    [​IMG]
    A pedestrian uses a smartphone as he walks along Market Street on June 5, 2013 in San Francisco, California.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty
    Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant

    06/25/14 10:24 AM—UPDATED 06/25/14 09:09 PM

    By Adam Serwer
    Police need a warrant to search the cell phone of a person who has been arrested, absent special circumstances, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

    “Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. 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 high court took two cases involving cell phone searches, one involving a smartphone and the other involving a relatively basic flip phone. In both cases, police used information on each phone to connect the plaintiffs to crimes. San Diego Police used pictures in David Leon Riley’s smartphone, and the guns they found in his trunk after pulling him over for a traffic violation, to tie him to a local faction of the Bloods street gang and an earlier shooting. In Boston, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of being involved in selling drugs and a picture linked to a phone call on his flip phone to a stash of crack cocaine.

    The decision will likely have long-lasting implications for digital privacy, far beyond the immediate concern surrounding how and when police can search a mobile device. Police are typically allowed to search an individual after an arrest, but Roberts wrote that the amount of personal information contained on a cell phone made such a search different from the usual objects authorities might find when asking someone to empty their pockets.


    “A cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house,” he wrote. “A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form—unless the phone is.”​

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/supreme-court-cell-phone-privacy-searches
     
    Someone_else likes this.
  2. Someone_else

    Someone_else Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have mixed feelings about this. First, I think that everyone should have the protections from the Bill Of Rights, going from Congress to State to county. Those government employees who violate those rights should be held accountable for their transgressions. But on the other hand, any FACTS that are germane to the guilt of a defendant must be admissible. A fact is a fact, regardless of its origin. A court should deal in factual data, and discarding any data for any reason is {insert appropriate profanity here}. I won't take sides between bad cops and bad perps. All bad should get their jail time.
     
  3. hammerhead

    hammerhead Not just a screen name Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Home Improvement Contractor
    Location:
    The Nation F/K/A USSA
    That's what warrants are for.
     
    JayDubya and Scorpio like this.
  4. hammerhead

    hammerhead Not just a screen name Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Home Improvement Contractor
    Location:
    The Nation F/K/A USSA
    I am happy to hear them say this.
     
  5. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,280
    Likes Received:
    3,767
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't they just make a huge deal about Apple hacking the CA shooters phone?
     
  6. D-FENZ

    D-FENZ Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    2,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you think that the ends justify the means? Even if the means are illegal? It's a very slippery slope.

    But go ahead. Since you have nothing to hide I am sure you won't mind sharing your keys and passwords with everyone.
     
  7. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Always good to hear when they get something right.

    IMO, your cell phone and other computers represent nothing more than an electronic and modern-day "papers and effects" mentioned in the 4th Amendment.

    Your "papers" are the data you create and hold, your effects are the evidence of your existence and doings created by your actions and interactions with the World. Ie: for example, contact and location data generated by your dealings with a phone company. Or a record of your cable TV viewing habits the cable company may know about you. Or any other data created by you. The only thing you don't have protection for would be your effects of crime, and in 1791 that would have been limited to real crimes with real victims that everyone agreed was a crime. For even the thieves/robbers/murders/rapists themselves know and agree that what they do is considered crime.
     
  8. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,280
    Likes Received:
    3,767
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can't data be printed out on paper? Same thing.
     
  9. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Exactly.
    Whether physical paper or electronic "paper", it's yours and it's supposed to be protected. I'm glad the SC agrees.
     
  10. Oldmansmith

    Oldmansmith Midas Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,728
    Likes Received:
    4,650
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Environmentl Consultant
    Location:
    Taxachusetts
    So I guess the NSA is going to stop recording our emails and phone calls. Not.
     
    <SLV>, Uglytruth and D-FENZ like this.
  11. D-FENZ

    D-FENZ Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    2,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It only seems like it must be a recent development because everyone knows that phones have been fair game to the cops. Yet the article in the OP is almost 3 years old. But does anyone believe that illegal searches or even outright seizures have since stopped?

    Actually, illegal phone searches have spiked recently. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-more-searches-last-month-than-all-2015.shtml

    But it's much worse than that. They can just take your phone. If you have cash or a car they can take that too, thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws- This from the very same courts that so generously ruled to allow you to keep the information on your phone. Pfft...

    Now it's up to you to fight them to get your shit back. Good luck.
     
    the_shootist and Joe King like this.
  12. Someone_else

    Someone_else Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    1,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not sure how you got that idea. NO! Ends do not justify means.

    Firstly, I wanted to convey my belief that an unconstitutional (whatever) should lead to prosecution of the government agent violating those rights.

    Secondly, I believe that any facts that prove the guilt of the defendent should go in front of the jury. Facts are facts, and it is wrong to withhold facts from the jury, regardless of where the facts came from.

    In summary, if a cop violates a criminal's rights, I could see jail time for both.
     
  13. <SLV>

    <SLV> Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,628
    Likes Received:
    2,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. What is the difference between searching my mobile phone and harvesting the data in real time?
     
    D-FENZ likes this.
  14. the_shootist

    the_shootist I self identify as a black '69 Camaro Midas Member Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    11,096
    Likes Received:
    10,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Architect
    Location:
    Cow Hampshire
    Yes, it HAS become that bad and yet we keep electing the same people over and over again. Asset forfeiture is government theft plain and simple!!
     
  15. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    2,746
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    I could support that.
    So if Congress passes and the POTUS signs a bill into law that is ultimately declared by the court to be unConstitutional, what should happen to 'em? Loss of pay? Fines? Jail time? Execution? What should the penalty be?


    What if those facts were collected illegally? What if that evidence comes from your wife? Or Doctor? Or Lawyer? Should no one ever be permitted absolute confidentiality, for any reason, ever?


    If a cop violates someones Rights in such a way that they discover evidence, why should that evidence not be thrown out? Had the govs agents acted legally, they'd have never found said evidence in order to use it in the first place.
    ...and if you're gonna let 'em collect evidence illegally in order to prosecute, did the ones being prosecuted actually have any Rights to begin with?
     
  16. GOLDBRIX

    GOLDBRIX God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh Site Supporter Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    3,656
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    S_e, Have you ever heard of "...being taken out of context".

    Lawyers are EXCELLENT at taking statements Out of Context.
    There are Lawyers that Prosecute for the State and FEDs that are EXECELLENT at omitting evidence that is /was to be provided to the Defense under the Rules of Discovery.

    In a perfect world I'd agree with you. BUT Welcome to the Real World.

    Personally I do not only want to see a Search Warrant. I would want ALL LEGAL parties Prosecution and Defense present upon seizure. SEALED as evidence and only opened in the presents a Court Appointed Rep. for the Court, The Defense Attorney and the Prosecutor.

    But Hey ! That's Just Me.
     
  17. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    1,945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    OK, I just choked on the "special circumstances." What pray tell is a 'special circumstance? Hummm?

    shit, the door is wide open and the cow is out of the barn.

    K, last time I was at a court my stupid phone went off as I was getting an impaired obligation of contract, no less. K, my phone never goes off, but it did.
    stupid voice verified to me that he knows another knuck like him that confiscates said phones. *and Iam thinking just try it* This my friendlies would b a special circumstance. A stupid judge taking ones phone "is" a confiscation but is it under 'special circumstances?" The question is, is what makes a circumstance special as apposed to a circumstance?
     
  18. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    1,945
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    gehawd i'm dying here: plaintiffs are the defendants?

    I am now taking an flying fuck at a rolling doughnut...

    yeah just context what I just quoted out of that crap to the proper word used. what is intimated is, is the victim is the plaintiff. jumping jesus frogs,
     
    solarion likes this.

Share This Page