SC Limits Cellphone Search

The SC unanimously ruled that police can not search your cellphone w/o 1st obtaining a warrant.

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-limit...--finance.html

"The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find."

Huh .."no greater protection from a search than anything else police find."

That's a weak argument at best, but hardly seems a "liberal" concept.

Well, they got one right! Good for SCOTUS!

Well, they got one right! Good for SCOTUS!

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No victory lap yet. Need to read the "fine print" ... already saw "safety" exception apparently written into the opinion, but that is SOP with searches.

The "problem' is with any search ..

..... the "punishment" is not using the information as evidence. Doesn't mean they "can't look" it only means they can't use what they find as "evidence" .. AGAINST the person with the phone.

The other qualifier is each search case is "fact specific" and repetitive appellate opinions "fine tune" the prohibition and start writing in "exceptions" to the general rule based on each set of facts.

BTW: (Have to read the opinion, but...) Can they keep your phone until they get a search warrant!!!!! My guess is ... yes!

Sure wouldn't want to know if the person was txting at the time of the car accident.

BTW: (Have to read the opinion, but...) Can they keep your phone until they get a search warrant!!!!! My guess is ... yes! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yes, but the warrant narrows their search, and other personal data and information that is found to be beyond the scope of the warrant cannot be kept as part of any police file: in theory.

Sure wouldn't want to know if the person was txting at the time of the car accident. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I would imagine they will be able to find out!

Yes, but the warrant narrows their search, and other personal data and information that is found to be beyond the scope of the warrant cannot be kept as part of any police file: in theory.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You mean "narrows their search" to the data content in the phone?

("i promise not to look at the "other stuff" in "plain view"!)

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on the pov) these banner headline decisions get "tweaked' and "upgraded' regularly and even the SCOTUS "clarifies" what was meant.

Example: "stop and frisk" carved by Terry vs. Ohio.

You mean "narrows their search" to the data content in the phone?

("i promise not to look at the "other stuff" in "plain view"!) Originally Posted by LexusLover

They must stipulate what they are looking for in the warrant. The nude pictures of your girlfriend are off-limits: in theory.

Even when trying to be friendly to another member of his Klan, errr, Clan, IBIdiot can help but being insulting.

BTW -- the notion of either you OR LLIdiot having nude pictures of ANYBODY GIRLFriend on your cellphone is bloody laughable.

Finally a correct defense of the Constitution. Now if we could just stop all of the rest of our 4th Amendment violations.

There's always a "probable cause" loophole thrown in there somewhere that would work around any warrant.

But that probably depends on whose cellphone they're looking at.

There's always a "probable cause" loophole thrown in there somewhere that would work around any warrant.

But that probably depends on whose cellphone they're looking at. Originally Posted by JCM800

"Probable cause" isn't a "loophole". It is the basis for a warrant. It is actually written IN the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If there isn't probable cause, you can't get a warrant. If there is, then you can get a warrant. That isn't a loophole, that is a protection.

They must stipulate what they are looking for in the warrant. The nude pictures of your girlfriend are off-limits: in theory. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not if the Judge authorizes a search for all photos of "nude females"!

Or all photos of "your girlfriend"!

Or all photos of females.

In the meantime LE gets to keep your phone.

Page 25:

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost. Our holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search, evenwhen a cell phone is seized incident to arrest. Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirementis “an important working part of our machinery of government,”
Page 26:
"not merely “an inconvenience to be somehow somehow‘weighed’ against the claims of police efficiency.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 481 (1971). Recent technological advances similar to those discussed here have, in addition, made the process of obtaining a warrant itself more efficient. See McNeely, 569 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 11–12); id., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring inpart and dissenting in part) (slip op., at 8) (describing jurisdiction where “police officers can e-mail warrantrequests to judges’ iPads [and] judges have signed suchwarrants and e-mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”).

"Moreover, even though the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones, other case-specific exceptions may still justify a warrantless search of a particular phone. “One well-recognized exception applies when ‘“the exigencies of the situation” make the needs oflaw enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Kentucky v. King, 563 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385, 394 (1978)). Such exigencies could include the need to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence in individual cases, to pursue a fleeing suspect, and to assist persons who are seriously injured or are threatened with imminent injury. 563 U. S., at ___. In Chadwick, for example, the Court held that the exception for searches incident to arrest did notjustify a search of the trunk at issue, but noted that “if officers have reason to believe that luggage contains some immediately dangerous instrumentality, such as explosives, it would be foolhardy to transport it to the stationhouse without opening the luggage.” 433 U. S., at 15, n. 9.

"In light of the availability of the exigent circumstancesexception, there is no reason to believe that law enforcement officers will not be able to address some of the more extreme hypotheticals that have been suggested: a suspect

Page 27

"texting an accomplice who, it is feared, is preparing todetonate a bomb, or a child abductor who may have information about the child’s location on his cell phone. The defendants here recognize—indeed, they stress—that suchfact-specific threats may justify a warrantless search of cell phone data. See Reply Brief in No. 13–132, at 8–9; Brief for Respondent in No. 13–212, at 30, 41. The critical point is that, unlike the search incident to arrest exception, the exigent circumstances exception requires a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. See McNeely, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 6).2"

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-132_8l9c.pdf

Please don't read the headlines or the editor's synopsis in the opinion for a basis for any euphoria and perceive you can now use your cell phone as a "file cabinet" ... unless you want LE to take possession of your "file cabinet" .... FYI: LE can look at it without a warrant, they just MAY NOT be able to use it as evidence against YOU (as the owner/"possessor" of the phone).

"Probable cause" isn't a "loophole". It is the basis for a warrant. It is actually written IN the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If there isn't probable cause, you can't get a warrant. If there is, then you can get a warrant. That isn't a loophole, that is a protection. Originally Posted by ExNYer

But often it's used even when there's absolutely no reason at all for a search.