{"id":15325,"date":"2014-06-25T12:14:11","date_gmt":"2014-06-25T16:14:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=15325"},"modified":"2017-06-30T04:43:04","modified_gmt":"2017-06-30T08:43:04","slug":"ussc-ruling-bans-cell-phone-searches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=15325","title":{"rendered":"USSC ruling bans cell phone searches"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. The United States Supreme Court is releasing a number of decisions today. Some will be their typical muddle headed rulings and some will be good but narrow decisions. One has just come out that will send shockwaves through law enforcement at all levels.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that police may not search through someone\u2019s cell phone without a search warrant. Here are the details from the Washington Times<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot go snooping through people\u2019s cell phones without a warrant, in a unanimous decision that amounts to a major statement in favor of privacy rights.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"snoopy-happy-dance.jpeg\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Police have long taken people\u2019s cell phones and rifled through them looking for criminal evidence. Usually the only way you could slow them down was to password protect the device, and that would only slow them down, not stop them.<\/p>\n

\n

Police agencies had argued that searching through the data on cell phones was no different than asking someone to turn out his pockets, but the justices rejected that, saying a cell phone is more fundamental.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Being asked to turn out your pockets is allowed as a matter of protection. You might have a weapon and be a threat to the police. However, this to has been abused. (See NYC Stop and Frisk) However, this is another court case.<\/p>\n

\n

The ruling amounts to a 21st century update to legal understanding of privacy rights.<\/i><\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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,\u201d Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the unanimous court.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s unusual to have a unanimous decision from the court, so they all seem to understand what was involved. I expect they all use cell phones themselves and probably smart phones which is the real target of this ruling.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOur answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple\u2014 get a warrant.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What\u2019s so hard about that? Getting a warrant these days is almost as easy as a prosecutor indicting a Bologna sandwich. Not that hard at all. And the ruling is even tougher then at first glance.<\/p>\n

\n

Justices even said police cannot check a cellphone\u2019s call log, saying even those contain more information that just phone numbers, and so perusing them is a violation of privacy that can only be justified with a warrant.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yep, I think the justices researched this decision carefully, probably by looking at the contents of their own phones. Now here is the reasoning from the justices.<\/p>\n

\n

The chief justice said cellphones are different not only because people can carry around so much more data \u2014 the equivalent of millions of pages of documents \u2014 that police would have access to, but that the data itself is qualitatively different than what someone might otherwise carry. He said it could lay bare someone\u2019s entire personal history, from their medical records to their \u201cspecific movements down to the minute.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I have a suspicion that more than a few of the justices of both financial and medial apps on their Iphones and Android devices and they don\u2019t like the idea of some Barney Fife wannabe digging through their information and records. Chief Justice Roberts also cited precedent. (The courts LOVE precedent)<\/p>\n

\n

The chief justice cited court precedent that found a difference between asking someone to turn out his pockets versus \u201cransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him\u201d \u2014 and the court found that a cellphone calls into that second category.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Roberts also brought up cloud computing. Law Enforcement has also used that as an excuse to ransack people\u2019s electronics.<\/p>\n

\n

Complicating matters further is the question of where the data is actually stored. The Obama administration and the state of California, both of which sought to justify cell phone searches, acknowledged that remotely stored data couldn\u2019t be searched \u2014 but Chief Justice Roberts said with cloud computing, it\u2019s now sometimes impossible to know the difference.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"Stock<\/a><\/p>\n

I know that on my phone, I tie into a number of sources and my data does NOT reside on the device. Get into it and you will see some personal stuff I don\u2019t want you to. (Which is why everyone at Anger Central has their phones set up for remote locking and wiping if lost) Now, I wonder how this will affect the NSA\u2019s trolling for data?<\/p>\n

\n

The court did carve out exceptions for \u201cexigencies\u201d that arise, such as major security threats.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And would you care to wager that there will be a number of \u201cMajor security threats\u201d that will require the NSA to search through every cell phone in America? Well, that\u2019s another case and I expect we will be seeing that one showing up soon enough.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

\"useagle3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

‘ US Supreme Court Rules Police May Not Search Cell …<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
#AceWorldNews \u2013 UNITED STATES \u2013 June 25 \u2013 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not search cell phones belonging to people they arrest without a warrant. The unanimous ruling in a pair of consolidated cases, …<\/div>\n
http:\/\/deadcitizensrightssociety.wordpress.com\/ \u2014 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:09:17 -0700<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Redeye’s Front Page: Mississippi Burning ” It looks like the …<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
Cops Can’t Grab Your Cellphone Data Without a Warrant, Supreme Court Rules – A major privacy ruling comes after police fishing expeditions. With few exceptions, police may not look at the contents of a person’s cellphone during an.<\/div>\n
http:\/\/redeyesfrontpage.blogspot.com\/ \u2014 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:07:00 -0700<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cellphone …<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
Supreme Court: Police Need Warrants to Search Cellphone Data Unanimous Supreme Court Says Privacy Interests Outweigh Police Convenience. WSJ’s Jess Bravin reports: The court in a unanimous ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts …<\/div>\n
http:\/\/timzerillo.blogspot.com\/ \u2014 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:04:00 -0700<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

High Court: Cops Can’t Search Cellphone, Must Ask NSA<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
(2014-06-25) \u2014 In a rare unanimous ruling on a civil rights issue, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that it’s unconstitutional for local police to search the contents of your cellphone. The Court declared that if local law enforcement wants to …<\/div>\n
http:\/\/capitallampoon.com\/ \u2014 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:02:38 -0700<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Club MediaNote: SCOTUS Rules for Cellphones and Privacy<\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
Is your cellphone more like a wallet or more like your home? It sounds like an odd and seemingly trivial question. But the Supreme Court of the United States (sometimes referred to as SCOTUS) decided this week that, in regard to police …<\/div>\n
http:\/\/clubmedianote.blogspot.com\/ \u2014 Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:58:00 -0700<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Good day all. The United States Supreme Court is releasing a number of decisions today. Some will be their typical muddle headed rulings and some will be good but narrow decisions. One has just come out that will send shockwaves through law enforcement at all levels. Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,37,71,57],"tags":[11,52,12,17,235,57],"class_list":["post-15325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-crime","category-liberty-politics","category-news-of-the-day","category-technology","tag-america","tag-constitution","tag-freedom","tag-liberty","tag-supreme-court","tag-technology"],"views":951,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":34580,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=34580","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court rules 9-0 supporting 4th Amendment on gun confiscation","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"May 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Good day all. I just had a bit of a surprise. I saw a decision that was just announced from the United States Supreme Court that was a 9-0 decision in favor of the 4th Amendment in regards to a warrantless seizure of guns. I recall reading about this case\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hero"","block_context":{"text":"Hero","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=181"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/constitution-300x198.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":42351,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=42351","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":1},"title":"Supreme Court unanimously decides in favor of Trump","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"March 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Good day all. News came out yesterday, (Sunday March 3rd), that a decision on President Trump\u2019s eligibility would be issued today. (Monday March 4th), The rumors in this case were correct, and the United States Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision. First some background. A number of Democrat controlled\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "General"","block_context":{"text":"General","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=32"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i.pinimg.com\/originals\/ea\/23\/fc\/ea23fc317950a351b6133aa54935691a.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":18411,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=18411","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":2},"title":"The Great Raisin Decision of 2015","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"June 27, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Good day all. The 2014-2015 session of the United States Supreme Court is coming to a close and the justices have begun releasing their decisions on matters of law and the constitution. One of the first deal with raisins.","rel":"","context":"In "History"","block_context":{"text":"History","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=5"},"img":{"alt_text":"Dont-Tread-300","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/10\/Dont-Tread-300.gif?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":5134,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=5134","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":3},"title":"Jerry Brown shows he is a closet totalitarian","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"October 12, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"If you are one of the many people with a cell phone, (And frankly almost everyone does), you should be aware that in California, your 4th amendment rights have just been canceled by Governor Jerry Brown.","rel":"","context":"In "Crime"","block_context":{"text":"Crime","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=3"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":31135,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=31135","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":4},"title":"The Great Panicdemic of 2020: Once again, Freedom defeats tyranny in Michigan","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"June 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"About a month ago, the people of Michigan decided enough was enough and started protesting the diktats of governor Wretched Gretchen Whitmer. Additionally, some small businesses, desperate to save themselves, decided to reopen regardless of what Wretched Gretchen wanted. One of these was 77 year old barber, Karl Manke. He\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Economy"","block_context":{"text":"Economy","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=176"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/i.pinimg.com\/originals\/b2\/8a\/ae\/b28aaeedec9ae7adc0e72c39bb4da694.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":12228,"url":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=12228","url_meta":{"origin":15325,"position":5},"title":"Supreme court kills Voting Rights Act","author":"Angry Webmaster","date":"June 28, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court is releasing all it\u2019s decisions, and one that has really given the Progressive Racist Democrats was the ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act. This ruling, which restores the 10th amendment rights of a number of states, has been used for decades by the Progressive Liberal Democrats\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Just Desserts"","block_context":{"text":"Just Desserts","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?cat=135"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/b1-gottlieb-ah_s640x986.jpg?fit=640%2C986&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/b1-gottlieb-ah_s640x986.jpg?fit=640%2C986&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/angry.net\/blog2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/01\/b1-gottlieb-ah_s640x986.jpg?fit=640%2C986&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15325"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15325\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24470,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15325\/revisions\/24470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}