Supreme Court Rules Cell Phone Search Requires A Warrant (1 Viewer)

[Frank Drebin]

Is this one of those rare "everyone in the FFA agrees on something" threads? Kind of a political thread too.

I think this is easily one of those cuts across all demographics kind of decisions. I would be surprised if very many, other than for shtick maybe, would be against this.

Our Justice Department? Police departments all over the country?

I meant here.

Yeah, I was just referring to the FFA. makes me wonder, are there any cops posting in here on a regular basis?

I'm more of a lurker/occasional poster, but I've been a cop for 20 years and completely agree with this ruling.

 

[fatness]

This thread is about a unanimous ruling from the USSC which we can all agree is (regardless of their leanings) a bench of scholars (especially their clerks btw who are the pick of the country's best).I really doubt any of your scholars are going to easily explain away why the state can't crack open someone's cell phone without a warrant but can nonetheless rifle through (at minimum) the metadata off that cell phone.

You're comparing 2 things that happen a distance apart.

Local police, during a stop, can't pore through your cellphone. At the same time, the NSA can go through your metadata and more if they're investigating you for terrorism. Those 2 things occur separately. It's not as though Officers Toody and Muldoon get on the phone with Chloe O'Brien during the traffic stop and ask her what she's got while they're administering a field sobriety test.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This thread is about a unanimous ruling from the USSC which we can all agree is (regardless of their leanings) a bench of scholars (especially their clerks btw who are the pick of the country's best).I really doubt any of your scholars are going to easily explain away why the state can't crack open someone's cell phone without a warrant but can nonetheless rifle through (at minimum) the metadata off that cell phone.

You're comparing 2 things that happen a distance apart.

Local police, during a stop, can't pore through your cellphone. At the same time, the NSA can go through your metadata and more if they're investigating you for terrorism. Those 2 things occur separately. It's not as though Officers Toody and Muldoon get on the phone with Chloe O'Brien during the traffic stop and ask her what she's got while they're administering a field sobriety test.

Key words there Fat:

if they're investigating you for terrorism

The NSA debate is about a quasi-military arm of the federal government going through the metadata of millions of people without any probable cause or even minimal suspicion of terrorism.

If the police who have actually arrested someone cannot go through a cell phone without a warrant even when they have probable cause, then the NSA surely cannot be able to access the same data without any arrest, warrant or notion of probable cause.

 

[NCCommish]

This thread is about a unanimous ruling from the USSC which we can all agree is (regardless of their leanings) a bench of scholars (especially their clerks btw who are the pick of the country's best).I really doubt any of your scholars are going to easily explain away why the state can't crack open someone's cell phone without a warrant but can nonetheless rifle through (at minimum) the metadata off that cell phone.

You're comparing 2 things that happen a distance apart.

Local police, during a stop, can't pore through your cellphone. At the same time, the NSA can go through your metadata and more if they're investigating you for terrorism. Those 2 things occur separately. It's not as though Officers Toody and Muldoon get on the phone with Chloe O'Brien during the traffic stop and ask her what she's got while they're administering a field sobriety test.

Well not sure what distance has to do with it. It's pretty clear under any reading of the Constitution and the legal precedent of the last 200 years that bulk collection of unspecified data has not really been considered legal. Now if you somehow see data as detached from the person it's related to I guess you could make a case but to be frank that's ridiculous on it's face.

 

[njherdfan]

My Criminal Procedure professor was cited a few times in the opinion; this was an issue that was clearly very important to him and an issue that he'd written about a lot. More importantly, however, he tweeted what might be the best humblebrag of all time.

 

[Politician Spock]

Tim will be disappointed by this

Not at all. I think this is a good decision.My disagreement with Politician Spock, Slapdash and others regarding the NSA was over whether or not the courts can grant a collective warrant which would allow for mass data to be collected. At no time did I ever state or imply that the authorities have the right to collect information without any warrant at all.

Well, except for that inconvenient fact that a warrant allowing all collection is the functional equivalent of the lack of requirement for warrants at all.

That was the argument.

It's not an argument, it's simple logic. That you don't understand it doesn't make the logic less true.

No, I'mNot going to let you get away with that again. As you know quite well, there are many highly respected legal scholars who disagree with your take on this. You neednt buy into their arguments, but you don't get to claim that somehow yours is the only logical position.

This thread is about a unanimous ruling from the USSC which we can all agree is (regardless of their leanings) a bench of scholars (especially their clerks btw who are the pick of the country's best).

I really doubt any of your scholars are going to easily explain away why the state can't crack open someone's cell phone without a warrant but can nonetheless rifle through (at minimum) the metadata off that cell phone.

Because the Supreme Court just said that all the vast personal information you keep on your phone is private, not the data you already send off into the ether. They said the hard drive is more like a computer than a cigarette case. There shouldn't be a big problem differentiating.

The SC also said that a typcial cell phone user is not aware of whether their data is physically on the phone or stored in the cloud servicing the phone. To them, they view the data seen on their phone the same regardless of where the data actually physically exists. Because the typical user is unaware of where the data exists, it is considered private even if it's in the cloud and not physically on the phone.

This is the part of the ruling that the NSA is going to have serious problems with.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

My Criminal Procedure professor was cited a few times in the opinion; this was an issue that was clearly very important to him and an issue that he'd written about a lot. More importantly, however, he tweeted what might be the best humblebrag of all time.

Nice, good for him.