Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...and it seems police cannot search your cellphone without a warrant. Isn't that nice?

WASHINGTON —- Cellphones and smartphones generally cannot be searched by police without a warrant during arrests, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a major victory for privacy rights.

Ruling on two cases from California and Massachusetts, the justices acknowledged both a right to privacy and a need to investigate crimes. But they came down squarely on the side of privacy rights.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "Privacy comes at a cost."

The court struck down an extensive smartphone search in California that had been upheld by the state Court of Appeals, as well as a more limited probe of an old flip-top cellphone in Massachusetts that a federal judge already had thrown out.

Currently, police can search the person under arrest and whatever physical items are within reach to find weapons and preserve evidence. But the justices noted that vast amounts of sensitive data on modern smartphones raise new privacy concerns that differentiate them from other items.

They said police still can examine "the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon." But once secured, they said, "data on the phone can endanger no one" and the arrested person will not be able to "delete incriminating data."

Roberts noted in his opinion that cellphones "are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Wow. Didn't see that one coming.

I was waiting for this one - there are a few big decisions coming down this session.

I'm surprised it went as it did. Obviously I agree with it, but I have not seen the court significantly checking police power in my opinion. Perhaps my perception is flawed.

I am pleased and surprised.

 Manchu wrote:
I am pleased and surprised.

Myself as well. It seems that a computer (which a smart phone essentially is) should be covered by the 4th as "papers," but the court has talked itself out of simpler ruling than that in the past.

I actually had to think on this for I thought it was considered "Private" already. I am now updated

 Jihadin wrote:
I actually had to think on this for I thought it was considered "Private" already. I am now updated

I think the argument the cops had was that a cell phone is "plain sight" and so they didn't need a warrant. If they arrest you and search your pockets they can get your wallet, little address book, and cell phone. They can already open your wallet and see what's in it, and they argued that the phone falls under the same rules.

Glad the SCOTUS disagreed.

I equated them to laptops.That was my chain of thought

Edit

Thanks for the clarification D

 Jihadin wrote:
I equated them to laptops.That was my chain of thought

I think that is all of our thoughts. Cellphones just hold way too much data. Not just "numbers called" and "texts", but access to email accounts, websites, GPS data that is embedded in your messages and pictures, browsing history. It's just so much more personal than "let's see what you got in your wallet".

Sure it can all be mighty helpful to the police and they should be able to get it. After they get a warrant of course.

I'm glad that this ruling was not only issued, but also that it was unanimous

Yes, the amount of Unanimous decisions lately is surprising. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop on that front.

And pedophiles everywhere rejoice. The ease at taking naughty pics on your phones and sending them to people is now protected. Do we have a slow-clap emoticon?

And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And pedophiles everywhere rejoice. The ease at taking naughty pics on your phones and sending them to people is now protected. Do we have a slow-clap emoticon?

And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

That...makes zero sense.

So you are saying that all pedophiles are protected because the police cannot walk into your house and look at your pictures in your photo album, computer, dvds, etc?

I think you might be confused at exactly what the ruling was about...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

Do you understand that search warrants, based upon probable cause A.) exist and B.) are wholly unaffected by this ruling?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And pedophiles everywhere rejoice. The ease at taking naughty pics on your phones and sending them to people is now protected. Do we have a slow-clap emoticon?

And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

You're doing the tough on crime meme and trying to work in the think of the children bit too, and not seriously endorsing blind authoritarianism, right?

Yeah, his post is a bit too much.

A unanimous SCOTUS ruling? I didn't even think that was possible.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And pedophiles everywhere rejoice. The ease at taking naughty pics on your phones and sending them to people is now protected. Do we have a slow-clap emoticon?

And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

This makes no sense. Could you explain why the police shouldn't need a warrant to look through everything on your phone?

I think selfies are involve

 timetowaste85 wrote:
And pedophiles everywhere rejoice. The ease at taking naughty pics on your phones and sending them to people is now protected. Do we have a slow-clap emoticon?

And if someone ACTUALLY needs me to explain how that works for pedophiles: girl takes naughty pic->boyfriend->boyfriend to older brother->to pervy friend->anyone. You get the idea. While its easy to show data is being transmitted, they can't really see WHAT is actually being shown through the transmission. Meanwhile downloading and visiting inappropriate sites on a laptop (and, yes, a phone too) is traceable. I think this is a stupid call.

Er...no they just need to get a warrant. Why are you against warrants? Why do you hate baby Jebus and George Washington?

 Frazzled wrote:

Er...no they just need to get a warrant. Why are you against warrants? Why do you hate baby Jebus and George Washington?

No need to say him twice!

I worked as a teacher for awhile, and there was a situation where one of the kids had naughty pics on his phone of a classmate. He locked his phone and the principal "wasn't allowed to get into the phone" to ascertain the truth of the matter. So, yes, people can pass inappropriate content in a way that can't be traced, and if you can't tell what is being transferred, there's pretty much no way to request a warrant. So anyone with that content is pretty much in the clear. Yes, I consider that a problem.

I didn't realize a principal and a teacher were meant to have the same powers as law enforcement without a warrant, or that a student with pics was akin to a pedophile.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I worked as a teacher for awhile, and there was a situation where one of the kids had naughty pics on his phone of a classmate. He locked his phone and the principal "wasn't allowed to get into the phone" to ascertain the truth of the matter. So, yes, people can pass inappropriate content in a way that can't be traced, and if you can't tell what is being transferred, there's pretty much no way to request a warrant. So anyone with that content is pretty much in the clear. Yes, I consider that a problem.

You do know there's a difference between some swinging dick principal AND THE LAW right?
I weep for this country. Tears of rage and angst, and...FREEDOM!

And if a teacher or principal sees a picture than he can hold the student and call the police who can then work on getting a warrant. No student has an automatic obligation to show a teacher what is on his phone.

And as much as it sucks to say it, pedophiles have the same constitutional rights as you and me.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I worked as a teacher for awhile, and there was a situation where one of the kids had naughty pics on his phone of a classmate. He locked his phone and the principal "wasn't allowed to get into the phone" to ascertain the truth of the matter. So, yes, people can pass inappropriate content in a way that can't be traced, and if you can't tell what is being transferred, there's pretty much no way to request a warrant. So anyone with that content is pretty much in the clear. Yes, I consider that a problem.

This argument, 40 years ago:
Young people have shoeboxes and Polaroid cameras. They could have pictures of literally anyone doing anything "naughty" in said shoeboxes, and these newfangled cameras let them take those pictures without anyone being able to enforce morality upon them for themselves. The police MUST be allowed to enter houses and inspect all shoeboxes of camera owners, to make sure they're not taking pictures of anything indecent, and they must be able to do this without a warrant. Society will collapse otherwise.

That argument, 4000 years ago:
Young people could be displaying parts of themselves to anyone behind closed doors. The police need to be able to use their paramilitary gear* to breach walls and kick down doors without warrants. Or we make all walls transparent. It's the only way. This wasn't a problem before walls started happening. Now that teenagers have access to walls and doors, they're empowered to present themselves in an indecent manner to others. Society will collapse otherwise.

Also, your goalposts shifted from shadowy fear stories of pedophiles (which, of course, no one wants around) to kids in schools showing each other what the water cooler story seems to indicate were indecent pictures. You said yourself, there was no way to compel the kid, so there's no proof right?

Also, in your anecdote, I think the principal should feth off. At that point, the cops should be involved. The principal isn't a LEO. I mean, that's what you guys have them lurking around schools 24/7 nowadays for, right?

*Well, okay, I guess like trebuchets and battering rams and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooh, here's another funny thing. Were it not for this ruling, you'd have more rights surrounding the search of your car trunk than you would your phone. If I understand properly, you could keep your phone in a locked box in your pocket, and you'd need a warrant also.

And, after a discussion with a friend, I'm amending my position: I didn't realize the carriers had access to all the stuff that gets sent through phones-it can actually be picked up, and they can pass it to the cops, if its deserved. So, because my whole reason for disapproving of the law CAN actually be tracked, my previously held position holds no ground. You know, if my friend is right about the carriers and such. I honestly have no idea. As long as there is a way to track the stuff that deserves to be tracked (flags for terrorism/kiddie porn/etc), then I fully support the warrant requirements. Also, I was painting a semi-enclosed area all day, so it's possible some of the fumes went to my head...

Theoretically, they can't see anything that occurs over a wi-fi connection, but an ISP should be able to see that.

In addition, the NSA is alleged to have software they can remotely install on phones that let them do stuff like view file contents and turn the cameras on and off without warning, for better or worse.

I mean, there's options. Subpoenas to ISPs are almost universally complied with from what I understand.

 daedalus wrote:
Subpoenas to ISPs are almost universally complied with from what I understand.

Well, the wireless carriers get paid for complying with them, so it's win/win.

 Ouze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Subpoenas to ISPs are almost universally complied with from what I understand.

Well, the wireless carriers get paid for complying with them, so it's win/win.

But will the savings get passed on to the customer?