Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches

[Moose-Knuckle]

None of that sounds bad to me. Did I misunderstand your post?

Why should I be on 5-0's radar because I have a friend or acquaintance who breaks the law?

That would make you a "known associate" of said friend.

[trinydex]

Nothing really new here -- generally you secure the phone to preserve evidence and get a warrant. Anyone acting differently was already risking it getting tossed.

there were differences in each judicial district, which is why this went to the supreme court. now the law of the land is final, there is no longer any discrepancy. the search of cellphones will require consent, one of the conventional warrant exceptions, or warrant.

[trinydex]

Nah. Everything will be a major security risk now. It will keep the locals at bay to a better degree, but the Feds will keep doing what they want in the name of national security.

In all seriousness it is a bit if common sense from the court. Unexpected, but I'll take it none the less.

this applies equally to federal and state/local law enforcement. you're probably alluding to the idea that intelligence agencies do not do law enforcement, however not all feds work for the intelligence community.

[trinydex]

A lot of the effect will have nothing to with risk of pending charges getting tossed. Search cell phone of a dealer, pimp, gang member, etc. And you get a list of known associates, then let them go. Now that is not going to happen. It will also slow-down quasi govt officials such as school administrators from searching phones. Could have wide reaching effects.

a list of known associates? because all criminals use the full names of their friends in their phones...

the case at hand was discussed on npr today and the defense attorney of case at hand was interviewed. the phone was searched at the time of arrest and then it was further forensically searched at a later time in the absence of a warrant.

this execution of procedure was consistent with a prior ruling from a lower court which stated law enforcement had the ability to search a phone in a reasonable amount of time, with the interpretation of reasonable allowing for law enforcement some short time period (maybe days) to acquire the right tools for analysis. essentially the lower court said that no one carries around a computer that specializes in phone analysis while on duty, law enforcement can take the phone to a safe location as evidence to have it further analyzed as a search incident to arrest.

the defense attorney of the subject case basically told a story that indicated his client was surely guilty of being a gang member. the evidence that was discovered on the phone included video of gang members fighting, pictures his client and another alleged gang member "playing around throwing gang signs," other identifiers of gang membership on the phone like monikers and abbreviations of the gang's name. such evidence was used to secure a gang enhancement for the gun charge for which this gang banger was convicted.

as kevinb said, this doesn't change a lot for such cases. there will be an inevitable discovery for evidence like this. the court has determined such information is private, certainly it should be. when someone is arrested for a legitimate reason and their phone is seized legitimately as evidence, law enforcement should legitimately apply for a warrant stating the probable cause to believe incriminating evidence exists within the phone and then use technological forensic tools ad procedures to access that evidence to secure convictions.

[Renegade]

a list of known associates? because all criminals use the full names of their friends in their phones...

Don't need a name, just a number and a Stingray. Most major PDs as well as Feds have Intel units, the ability to construct criminal networks is vital to their efforts. I have first-hand knowledge of this since the 80s.

[ForTehNguyen]

oh look someone actually read 4A. Kinda sad at the same time that this had to be brought up to the SCOTUS for something so blatantly obvious

[OldState]

Interesting that the court unanimously agreed that the new technological advancements that lead to cell phones and how we use them, does not affect our basic right of privacy as the Founders understood it.

However, the same left wing justices argue that because they only had muskets in 1787, the natural right of self defence doesn't apply to AR 15s etc.

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.

[trinydex]

Don't need a name, just a number and a Stingray. Most major PDs as well as Feds have Intel units, the ability to construct criminal networks is vital to their efforts. I have first-hand knowledge of this since the 80s.

that's something different than what I had read. now that I reread what you're saying I think you're quite right. the repercussions will affect these.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Now that SCOTUS has made this ruling, wouldn't it be nice if they forced the NSA to play by the say rules . . .

[trinydex]

Now maybe SCOTUS can do something about We the People being tracked (Stringray) via celluar phone . . . HAH, who am I kid'n?!

there already is a ruling by the supreme court regarding positional data. there should not need to be a separate ruling regarding any specific position acquisition device. the ruling is that positional data requires a warrant.