Discussion for article #224337
I guess even the Supremes can get pulled over for DWI and don’t want the cops getting the phone number of their bookies.
6 Likes
9-0? Should be 8-0. Quite unfair that Scalia gets 2 votes (his and Thomas’)
7 Likes
The proverbial visitors from Mars would probably think our cell phones were as primitive as two tin cans with a string attached.
2 Likes
This just in! In fortunate turn of events for all who are concerned about police overreach on the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, it was disclosed today that even members of SCOTUS reactionary majority who are dangerously detached from, and uninformed about, about most aspects of modern life use cell phones.
6 Likes
today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.
This was what had me worried. During the questions it a few justices sounded like they didn’t think there was much that people left open in their devices.
Give him a little wiggle room here, its the most human comment I’ve heard from him. It was actually vaguely humorous.
1 Like
Why does it take 38 pages to say…Hey…get a warrant ?
“today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.”
Why they keep everything there is a mystery to me, as they’re too easily lost or destroyed. The only thing I keep on my cellphone are phone numbers.
3 Likes
… and in a separate but related ruling, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 vote that corporations could search the data on your cell phones without a warrant provided you checked a little checkbox that said “I agree to the terms of use for this phone”.
4 Likes
It’s a mystery to me why people keep their eyes on their phones 24/7, and you’d better get out of their way as they walk without seeing.
4 Likes
Two weeks ago I got my 1st cell phone ever. It’s a flip open style. A friend said “Wow, welcome to the 1990’s!” in reality all I wanted was the ability to use the device as it was originally intended …as a phone. These days it seems that’s the least popular function of these mobile devices.
I still have a strong dislike of cell phones mainly because quite a few folks will use them while driving. That behavior endangers them and anyone around them on the road. I’ve been rear ended three times in 4 years by inattentive drivers who were on their phones at the time. One person refused to hang up so this we could exchange insurance information. So, I waited for a cop. When the cop arrived he politely asked that they hang up. They refused. after a back and forth he threatened arrest. When the phone was surrendered he tossed it to the side of the road. Onlookers cheered.
5 Likes
and thus the unbelievable expansion of “Security Letters” requested by local cops to the DHS just for looking at the cell phones of low-level criminals, mostly for drug and ICE enforcements.
It’s waaaaay out of hand.
Refer to my post
If a terrorist were to explode the old ticking time bomb with his phone, would confiscating his phone after the fact really do anything about the explosion?
Catching them during the actual act of phoning the bomb seems next to impossible.
In the end, the justices were mindful of the fact that modern cell phones are deeply personal and powerful devices.
Cuz they own one?
Ya think?
1 Like
Too bad most of them don’t also possess a uterus.
5 Likes
Local CBS TV news reported that the Obama administration opposed this unanimous ruling on the grounds that cell phones should be treated just like all other evidence.
I’ve not been able to corroborate that, but if true, that would be just a stunning statement to make. That’s precisely what the ruling says, namely, cell phone searches require a warrant like everything else, which begs the question: what is the standard to which the administration was referring, moreover, is that clearly conflicting standard the one to which they hold themselves?
That they’d choose to weigh in on this in the first place is telling – at the risk of sounding like Alex Jones, perhaps this puts what they erroneously argued were legal domestic surveillance programs in unambiguous jeopardy.
What does this do for warrantless searches of phone and computers by the TSA? Does this affect that?
They are also “law enforcement”, right?
I don’t think that is the Administration position. Their premise was that a cell phone was like anything else found in a physical pat-down search like a wallet, which apparently doesn’t require a warrant.
2 Likes