Supreme Court Requires Warrant for Cell Phone Searches by Police

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
23,094
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Richard Palm
Home Airfield
Palo Alto (SFO area)
The big question is how did this ever make it to the Supreme court? The practice of searching cell phones should have been quashed by the first judge and every subsequent judge. A legal no-brainer.



Amendment IV

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.
 
This is a pleasant surprise. I never expected this either because many lower courts ruled searching phones as similar to searching the pockets of someone arrested.
 
Gerhardt said:
.... many lower courts ruled searching phones as similar to searching the pockets of someone arrested.
Click to expand...
Which only goes to prove that the vast bulk of the judiciary have mental disorders.
 
My nephew was in a bad auto accident and ended up in the hospital. The police confiscated his cell phone. They returned it and said his last text was 2 hours before the accident. I wonder did they get a warrant?
 
I am surprised it was unanimous.
 
ron22 said:
My nephew was in a bad auto accident and ended up in the hospital. The police confiscated his cell phone. They returned it and said his last text was 2 hours before the accident. I wonder did they get a warrant?
Click to expand...

Probably not.
 
A good decision for a change.
 
Gary F said:
I'm not. Any judge who ruled this practice was permissible should be kicked out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...

Quite literally, and with a pair of steel-toed boots.

Kudos to SCOTUS for getting one right -- and unanimously, at that. The Fascist wing really surprised me this time.

-Rich
 
ron22 said:
My nephew was in a bad auto accident and ended up in the hospital. The police confiscated his cell phone. They returned it and said his last text was 2 hours before the accident. I wonder did they get a warrant?
Click to expand...

Did he not have some kind of locking mechanism?

I know they can be bypassed, but I'm not sure some police station would have the resources if it's not a really serious case.
 
Johann said:
Did he not have some kind of locking mechanism?

I know they can be bypassed, but I'm not sure some police station would have the resources if it's not a really serious case.
Click to expand...
Mine is always locked, unless I'm using it (obviously). If I ever get pulled over while using it, I'll relock it; 10 incorrect tries and it's permanent.
 
You can let us search your phone and be on your way or we will have to hold onto it until we get a warrant. How many zombiephone users could stand being away from their validation machine for any amount of time?
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can let us search your phone and be on your way or we will have to hold onto it until we get a warrant. How many zombiephone users could stand being away from their validation machine for any amount of time?
Click to expand...
Good reason to encrypt the phone/tablet/PC. There are also apps that can scratch a phone if it falls into enemy hands. Though I personally do not believe I have anything incriminating on my devices, I am quite sure I would not want someone wandering through my emails, websites, or documents.
On a related item, burgler was arrested after he posted on his Facebook account FROM his victims home.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can let us search your phone and be on your way or we will have to hold onto it until we get a warrant. How many zombiephone users could stand being away from their validation machine for any amount of time?
Click to expand...

If they had probable cause for a warrant they wouldn't be trying to leverage permission. Stand your ground, so to say.

I dont consent to searches. Am I under arrest or am I free to go?
 
Doggtyred said:
If they had probable cause for a warrant they wouldn't be trying to leverage permission. Stand your ground, so to say.

I dont consent to searches. Am I under arrest or am I free to go?
Click to expand...

The prisons are full of folks who did not practice the above simple, and excellent advice.
 
paflyer said:
Details?
Click to expand...

On iPhones, there's an app called "Find My iPhone".

Log in on another device and it can...

1) Show the location of the phone, if turned on.

2) Play a loud sound, to help you find it.

3) Wipe the device if you wish.

#3 is not draconian if you're backed up to iCloud.
 
If it went to the cloud, the NSA probably already has it.... but that probably won't come into play in a typical car accident.
 
FastEddieB said:
On iPhones, there's an app called "Find My iPhone".

Log in on another device and it can...

1) Show the location of the phone, if turned on.

2) Play a loud sound, to help you find it.

3) Wipe the device if you wish.

#3 is not draconian if you're backed up to iCloud.
Click to expand...

None of this prevents law enforcement from getting a data dump from your phone provider that shows timestamped activity (voice, SMS, data)..
 
This issue is negated as long as you have a password on your phone. You have the right to remain silent and not incriminate yourself. Set a password and you're not required to give it to them.
 
Johann said:
Did he not have some kind of locking mechanism?



I know they can be bypassed, but I'm not sure some police station would have the resources if it's not a really serious case.
Click to expand...


You really think so? This was/is big business, some have non-disclosure contracts for agencies that sign up.

More evidence for conviction, bigger revenue stream. Pretty quick payback, I would imagine.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...only-grab-your-cellphone-data-with-a-warrant/

Field extraction, CelleBrite notes in one brochure, "ensures that a suspect’s phone can be examined before the individual has a chance to destroy or erase data.
Click to expand...

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-resources/the-cellebrite-advantage

http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/gfd-cellebrite-ufed-training-series

http://www.policegrantshelp.com/technology/6999761-Police-keep-quiet-about-cell-tracking-technology/
 
This must really chap the britches of those libs that say, "If you're not doing anything WRONG you shouldn't mind them searching your phone."
 
Florida Cracker said:
This must really chap the britches of those libs that say, "If you're not doing anything WRONG you shouldn't mind them searching your phone."
Click to expand...

I thought that was something that law-and-order conservatives say. :P
 
Florida Cracker said:
I personally know very few conservatives that would endorse a statist government mentality like that.
Click to expand...

I personally know no liberals who would object to this decision. (And there are a lot of liberals where I live.)

Did you notice that the ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, and is hailing the decision? I don't know what you think of them, but some people consider them to be a liberal organization.
 
Just about every of my fellow officers are in agreement that it's a good, common-sense decision. If nothing else, we finally have clear rules on it, rather than variations from one judge to another.

Regarding the above post about getting the message content from the service providers, not without a search warrant.
 
ateamer said:
Just about every of my fellow officers are in agreement that it's a good, common-sense decision. If nothing else, we finally have clear rules on it, rather than variations from one judge to another.

Regarding the above post about getting the message content from the service providers, not without a search warrant.
Click to expand...

In one article I saw, a San Jose police officer was quoted as saying that they have no problem with it, and don't mind doing the extra work to get a warrant when needed.
 
Ex-law enforcement officer, and I find it a welcome rolling back on what has become an intrusive lack of privacy.

Of course it should require a warrant.

It's not like the amendment isn't pretty darn clear:

AMENDMENT IV

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.

Just remember, that "probable cause" simply means a crime has probably been committed and that the person probably committed it. All that is necessary to affect an arrest or obtain a warrant. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt rightly belongs in the realm of the courts, not the streets.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You can let us search your phone and be on your way or we will have to hold onto it until we get a warrant. How many zombiephone users could stand being away from their validation machine for any amount of time?
Click to expand...


What right do you have to confiscate my phone? Or is that one of the "Don't like it? Sue me" clauses?
 
nddons said:
What right do you have to confiscate my phone? Or is that one of the "Don't like it? Sue me" clauses?
Click to expand...

if you are arrested your phone will be put, along with other belongings (wallet, hair comb, etc) into personal property before you are transported to jail. A DUI arrest is such an example.

If your phone was believed to be used to facilitate a crime, law enforcement will seek (now, via warrant) the contents/messages/etc of that phone.

For law enforcement to obtain phone records/logs/etc from the service provider (aka Verizon, etc) a court order/subpoena or warrant will be needed, issued to the provider.

To get around the new "warrant" rule, I see law enforcement seeking written consent to search your phone
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I personally know no liberals who would object to this decision. (And there are a lot of liberals where I live.)



Did you notice that the ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case, and is hailing the decision? I don't know what you think of them, but some people consider them to be a liberal organization.
Click to expand...


They are, as they never fight for civil liberties guaranteed by the 2A, unlike every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. However, I agree with them here.
 
paflyer said:
Details?
Click to expand...
All my Android devices have a switch to encrypt them which will require an appropriate password on startup. As mentioned, iPad offers software to zap devices that are lost. I have an app called Lookout that provides base security to Android. Lookout is available for I devices as well.
Though I do not participate in anything illegal (in my mind), I would not voluntarily consent to a search. All things are subject to interpretation.
 
Hmm. Since you can wipe your device remotely, what happens if that happens after the cops grab it?
 
Matthew said:
Hmm. Since you can wipe your device remotely, what happens if that happens after the cops grab it?
Click to expand...

Well, since your device needs to be powered on and connected to the internet to be wiped, it would seem that action could be very easily thwarted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top