Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS To Weigh Smartphone Searches By Police
schwit1 writes "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether police can search an arrested criminal suspect's cell phone without a warrant in two cases that showcase how the courts are wrestling to keep up with rapid technological advances. Taking up cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a warrant, the high court will wade into how to apply older court precedent, which allows police to search items carried by a defendant at the time of arrest, to cell phones."
Can we hope for the proper decision (that police need a warrant)?
Doesn't mention phones, so there is no right to them.
In fact, he's pretty sure they're witchcraft.
If there is enough evidence for arrest, then there is enough evidence TO GET A GODDAMN WARRANT. Does the Fourth Amendment mean nothing to ANYONE anymore?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
A pin or pattern / gesture lock is useless if the cops have the phone. They DO have tools to render such trivial things useless. They DO use those tools. I have seen the little box with the multitude of connectors being attached to a phone, and then the phone is unlocked, data dumped, and sorted through. Encryption, strong, non manufacturer based encryption, is the only thing close to safe.
In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
It's not that complicated, damn it.
Seriously? How on earth does anything you just said magically erase the US Constitution?
That smartphone represents, just as you said, access to huge amounts of information about the suspect. As well as information about innocent third parties that quite possibly had nothing to do with the crime.
You're supporting the idea of fishing expeditions into a person's digital space.
Arrest does not imply guilt. A member of the Judiciary should always be consulted regarding, and allowed to limit, the scope of any search of a person's effects and papers.
So, NO. There is not always enough evidence to justify the full and complete invasion of privacy of a citizen that is innocent until being proved guilty. If there really is a justifiable reason to invade that privacy than the police can convince a judge to do it.
Don't be a douchenozzle that enables their asshattery please.
There is never an acceptable reason to violate due process and PERFORM ANY ACTION WITHOUT A WARRANT .
Warrant, warrant, warrant, W A R R A N T!
It's a well conceived check and balance against tyranny ever present in a law enforcement organization. Don't give up something so valuable to the citizens over such stupid reasons.
I think it largely has to do with ignorance.
The poster holds a rather unsophisticated view that allows them to see the police's reasonable and justified need for access to that information as something correct and desirable.
The 4th doesn't mean anything to the poster since they don't understand the basics taught to people in Civic's class. That being, the ostensibly simple concept of having a member of the Judiciary act as a check and balance against the needs of the Executive.
Nobody is saying that the police should not have access to that data. They absolutely should and I can totally understand that it would be very useful to solving crimes. What the proponents completely miss is the understanding of what a warrant is .
That's the real problem. How many people understand what the heck a warrant even is anymore?
Only like the greatest hairband EVAR!
....oh.....I may have made your case for you.....
Younger generations don't seem to care? It seems to me like younger generations are the ONLY ones that care. The older generations are the ones that got us here.
Don't put shit on the youth. They're active. They care. OUR apathy and ignorance got us here.
If you want to allow the police to look through your phone without a warrant, you're more than welcome to. I would appreciate it if you'd leave the rest of us out it.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The key word there is "nearly." We have a name for the exceptions: they're called "civil rights violations!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Unfortunately you are incorrect.
Several neighbors had their houses burglarized. One neighbor found their TV for sale on Craigslist. They called the police in the city that the burglary took place in, that city PD had him contact the seller, that was a mile and a half over just into an adjacent city, so it was set up with that adjacent city's PD to meet the seller. Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
I do not think that this was right, but it does demonstrate that it is not always possible to get a warrant even when the circumstances should be blindingly obvious.
I think that a warrant should be necessary to search someone's cellphone at any time, not just at arrest. Traffic stops, border entry, "immigration checkpoints", any reason. Mind you, if someone has been arrested and the investigation and charges against them indicate either conspiracy (like the fence for the stolen TV) or multiple perpetrators then it probably should be shall-issue for warrants for communications devices, but if a crime doesn't meet that standard then it should be much harder to get a warrant.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
So why not skip all the bullcrud and use common sense and let cops do their job.
That "bullcrud" is called Due Process and the Constitution of the United States of America.
"Nearly 100%" doesn't cut it. You're being a douchenozzle right now.
If it was your freedom at risk, why would you elect to remove the Judiciary oversight from your interaction with law enforcement?
Another question:
You may feel that way, but why would you deny me my Constitutional right to privacy in my effects and papers?
The position you hold is not reasonable, or rational, and basically amounts to "due process and oversight is so hard. I have to like convince a judge that my logic is correct".
In other words, you strongly disagree with the idea of peer review.
Those checks and balances were created by the founding fathers for a reason. Not just to fuck with law enforcement and make their lives harder.
Judges can be woken up, and if we have so much crime that we need to start hiring and paying judges to work grave yard shifts we have much bigger problems.
At that point let's just put society to rest and create Judge Dredd.
All of your examples pale in comparison to the protections afforded by judicial oversight. It's my RIGHT to have that judge woken up and asked if the logic and reasoning behind the violation of my privacy is warranted.
Interesting how that word is used. An action can be "warranted". That's what a warrant means. Somebody designated by the citizens and trained to be impartial evaluated the situation and said the invasion of my privacy was warranted and in the best interests of society.
With respect, I FUCKING WANT THAT.
Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights, haul my ass off to jail for forced enemas, colonoscopies, beatings, jail rapes, etc.
Let's keep due process dude. It's a really good idea.
The cell phone is the new notepad or scrap of paper that the criminal is carrying.
Maybe so. However, it also represents scraps of paper that are held in numerous other locations, and information that has nothing to do with the crime at hand.
Nothing you said even for a microsecond excuses your desire to eliminate due process. Remember, I'm not arguing that you can't get it. Only that I want a judge to say that the getting of my data is warranted.
You have the same back asswards logic that the NSA uses to justify mass surveillance. We *could* be ohh that much safer if we just got rid of due process and violated everyone's privacy in real time forever. All of the criminal text messages would be seen instantly!! We could even create a "precog" division for rapid response and be at the drug drop *before* the criminals get there.
No dude. The risks and dangers to our society from such invasions of privacy are so much more dangerous than whatever security you think you gained with it.
Once again, for the 2nd time in this post, if you really think you need it, just ask for a WARRANT.
A WARRANT allows you get that information you want because the logic and reasoning you have for getting it is determined to be WARRANTED.
You have not presented any logical reason whatsoever for getting rid of my due process rights.
Yes, let's let the cops do their job. That includes GETTING A GOD-DAMNED WARRANT.
The rest of your commentary is so laughably idiotic that I hope no one wastes any time responding to it.
Actually the rationale doesn't apply to closed containers either, or open ones for that matter, unless they happen to be on your person and capable of hiding a weapon - the Terry Pat is only to ensure you don't present an imminent threat to the officers during questioning, nothing else. If they even want you to empty your pockets they need either a warrant or your consent, or to actually arrest you, which changes the rules somewhat. Sadly they are unlikely to face any repercussions for ordering you to do things they are not actually authorized to require, and by complying with their orders the judge is likely to decide that you voluntarily consented. And of course unless you know the law well enough to be certain which orders you are required to comply with and which ones are "requests" you're likely to get yourself in trouble by refusing to obey.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In the days of landlines, *everyone* had multiple people using the same phone. I still do that to this day with my smartphone. Friends, siblings, etc. use my phone all the time, and why shouldn't they? You can't assume anything on my smartphone was done by me alone. Same with my PC. Back before cell phones, if someone ran out of gas and walked to the nearest house to borrow their phone, it wasn't unusual at all. I was also always happy to show off my Commodore 64 and Amiga to all my friends or relatives. Why are we assumed not to have this privilege anymore? At what point did we *become* our phone or PC? I'm not a phone number or IP address, I'm a human being. Don't I have the right to be courteous enough to let others use my equipment anymore?
I wouldn't think 10 in 100 would be able to name the amendments. I don't think anyone in Congress has heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments. And nearly everyone I talked to about Amendments gets pretty fuzzy after the second, especially the 3rd is so irrelevant.
I'd say more like 1 in 100 would be able to name the first 10 amendments.
Learn to love Alaska
Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
Why the hell should the lone fact of arresting a person with one (or even multiple) item of stolen merchandise be reasonable cause to search that person's home?
That's the same kind of logic that leads to civil asset forfeiture laws: you've been arrested on suspicion of breaking one law so we can assume you've probably violated a bunch of others until you prove to us that you didn't. Without sworn statements from anyone else claiming that the other advertised items were stolen, there was insufficient reason to violate the sanctity of the seller's home with a search.
Sadly, an arrest is not an objective process. It only means that a cop thought it would be a good idea to arrest someone, that's basically all it means. Now, of course in most cases, I'd hope, it means that the cop has some very good reason to believe the person he arrested broke a law.
But what keeps a crooked cop from arresting someone he thought has slept with his wife to get a hold of that person's cellphone to see whether he can find some pictures that prove it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not unreasonable at all - the guy was arrested for selling stolen goods on Craig's list, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the other items he has advertised have been stolen.
It's not like he was arrested for breaking a red light and wanting to search his house - that is not acceptable.
Unfortunately the seller came out of his apartment with the hot TV, not letting anyone inside to see all of the other stuff that he had listed on CL. Despite arresting him with stolen merchandise they could not get a warrant to search his apartment.
I do not think that this was right,
I think it is possible, given the description, for that to be the right decision. You don't mention whether the authorities had any evidence that he had a history of negligently receiving stolen goods before, or that any of the other Craig's List listings were stolen. It is possible to conceive an innocent story that matches those events.
I have purchased several tired, used guitars recently from Craig's List. I have fixed them up and will now sell some of them. If it turns out that one of them is stolen, I would argue that does not amount to probable cause that I am warehousing stolen merchandise. Assuming I have a credible explanation for having one stolen guitar, it seems like it is substantially more likely that I am an innocent collateral actor and a warrant is not justified. Or, slightly differently; I would fight the warrant(*) and I think I would win.
I don't know the specifics of the story you are recounting, so your perception may be well founded. Based on the brief synopsis you present, however, it is possible to construct a backstory that would not support a warrant to my mind. I think that is one of the challenges that often eludes us in analysis of suspicious behavior; to consider how likely it is for an innocent person to have stumbled under the inspector's glass.
* if, for example, they found something else illegal, like a refrigerator full of murdered mimes, and attempted to convict based on plain view doctrine
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You got a citation?
I used this search:
craigslist tv warrant stolen goods
I found this story, police got warrant:
http://www.krem.com/news/regional/spokane-county/Local-man-tracks-down-stolen-goods-using-Craigslist--228170651.html
warrant issued: http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/Plover-Man-Accuse-of-Selling-Stolen-Property-on-Craigslist-234155941.html
warrant issued: http://www.king5.com/news/crime/Guns-and-robbery-kits-Craigslist-stolen-items-bust-192359201.html
warrant issued: http://www.abcnews4.com/story/22806385/craigslist-posting-leads-to-recovery-of-stolen-property
warrant issued:
http://www.ksat.com/news/craigslist-post-leads-to-thousands-of-dollars-of-stolen-property/-/478452/20969968/-/8tktj8z/-/index.html
There are tons of instances where people selling stolen goods have been the subject of search warrants. It would be interesting to see what specific set of details made your anecdote unique enough to avoid a warrant -- but I can't find it.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good