Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant

New submitter CarlThansk (3713681) writes The courts have long debated on if cell phones can be searched during an arrest without a warrant. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected (PDF) from routine inspection." Phones may still be searched under limited circumstances (imminent threats), but this looks like a clear win for privacy. Quoting the decision: "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."

Comments

Not in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if you can tell the NSA to stay the hell out of everyone elses phones, that would be great. Thanks.

Re:Not in USA

[thaylin]

Technically this applies to the NSA on American phones. If the NSA will listen to it or not, or if you can prove they did not obey it or not, is a completely different question all together.

Re:Not in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anything seem to apply to the NSA?

Re:Not in USA

[Ziggitz]

From the looks of it it seems that this ruling only applies to the data stored on phones, not information passing over the network. This doesn't apply to the mass surveillance of communications and it doesn't mean that the FISA courts aren't going to blanket approve every single warrant like they have been for the past several years. All this really means is the police can't search your phone when they arrest you or during a stop to gather evidence against without first getting a warrant. While this is definitely a step in the right direction it isn't nearly as wide reaching as you would think.

Re:Not in USA

[amicusNYCL]

You'll also have to prove that the NSA actually searched your phone.

Re:Not in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let 'em listen. As long as what they hear can't be used in court, that's 99% of the battle for 99% of the cases.

Re:Not in USA

[TWX]

Let 'em listen. As long as what they hear can't be used in court, that's 99% of the battle for 99% of the cases.

There's a danger here though, and that is the existence extraordinary-rendition loophole that allows for people to be taken and held. It's bad enough to be taken to Cuba, but there are other places that are much further off-the-radar where one could be taken without any recourse at all, and worry is that if an agency decides that someone is bad, if the courts won't let them arrest them and charge them conventionally then they might feel they must use extraordinary rendition instead. So, one goes from at least a chance of going through the court system to simply disappearing.

I think that the default needs to be to prosecute terrorists as garden-variety criminals. Terrorists need to be downplayed to the level of spree killer or serial killer, and treated with the same handling. I'd much rather see a special court set up to handle such prosecutions, perhaps overseen in trial by a member of the Surpreme Court and with juries comprised themselves of judges from various courts, where the court isn't "open" so that sensitive information that needs to remain sensitive can be introduced as evidence but can be still held close. Appeal from this court could go right to the Surpreme Court itself, though that might force the presiding justice to recuse himself or herself. Information from such cases could be made public after a certain amount of time that would have to be predetermined, but while a flawed system it would still be better than holding someone in-perpituity on borrowed foreign soil.

Re:Not in USA

[Morpeth]

Tell that to people in Gitmo, etc., who have NEVER been to court after how many years? Slap on the words 'terrorism' or 'national security' and you'll be lucky if you ever get your day in court.

Re:Not in USA

[ShanghaiBill]

Let 'em listen. As long as what they hear can't be used in court, that's 99% of the battle for 99% of the cases.

Then they came for the other 1%, and I did not speak out because I was not part of the other 1% ...

Re:Not in USA

[sycodon]

How about iPads and other tablet devices that aren't phones but are likely to hold even more personal data than a phone does?

Re:Not in USA

[torkus]

Without them quashing the whole suit on the basis on national security

or

without them refusing to comment on the basis of national security

or

without them delaying until the judge insists and then letting him privately view the evidence once and issue a ruling on the basis of national security

or

manage to disprove the claims of an 'anonymous source' who happens to provide the same information

or ...

Re:Not in USA

[Swave An deBwoner]

How about iPads and other tablet devices that aren't phones but are likely to hold even more personal data than a phone does?

And how about a ruled and bound notebook that traditionally has held personal data? Maybe if I attach two tin cans and some waxed string to it they'll classify it as a phone and then I won't have to worry that they'll find evidence of on it.

Re:Not in USA

[Anonymous Coward]

not information passing over the network

Did you know there's all kinds of wireless information passing through networks right across your home property, and even through your body? Its actually illegal to highjack that wireless data, even if its in your home, which it is. Its not just illegal for us, its illegal for everyone. And police are hardly tech savvy anyway. They don't really care about ruining your day. They care about their paycheck and their homes, just like us.

Re:Not in USA

[sumdumass]

It's not even as complicated as that. You shoot a guy and hide the gun in a knot hole in an old Oak tree down the road. They here you tell someone where it is hidden and asking if it should be moved. They go and find it and make up the story of a kid was playing or a hunter saw a reflection of light and got curious to what was causing it. Now you are hit.

I think that is called parallel construction. It's how cops can pull someone over for doing 3 miles per hour over the speed limit or for a tail light being out (by their own hand at your last fuel stop) and find 2 kilos of crack inside a spare tire.

Re:Not in USA

[Darinbob]

I think those were considered to be like computers, and thus not searchable without a warrant. Police had been using phones as an exception for some time, in some circumstances. Ie, if you were arrested then they could search the phone you had on your person, but not the phones at your house unless you had a warrant.

When this started phones were relatively dumb, storing not much more than your contact list. The rationale was that this was like having an address book in your pocket. If you're searched at the station and the contents put on the table, then they can flip through that little book. So with the phone they could pick it up and see who you called and there weren't any passwords.

Re:Not in USA

[rtb61]

Of course due to the NSA full frontal perversion exposure, they thought, nudge nudge, wink wink, it might be useful for some pet court to help rebuild the illusion of privacy and security without a search warrant, so the NSA could go back to it's happy perverted privacy invasive ways before people started deleting private information from mobile phones. Private data really doesn't belong on a mobile phone. Encryption is a waste of time on a mobile because once they own your touch screen OS every tap can be recorded and forwarded. Yep, the NSA would certainly love the idea that everyone would believe their mobile phone is totally 100% secure.

Re:Not in USA

[david_thornley]

The average local police officer isn't getting a FISA warrant, but will instead have to convince a judge that there's probable cause to check out the contents, and will have to tell the judge what they're looking for. Obviously, if there is probable cause, the police should get the search warrant. This decision looks sensible to me. It may be that judges are too free in issuing search warrants, but that's a separate issue. (So's the NSA.)

Re:Not in USA

[Wootery]

Sure: finances.

So they'll just add

[future assassin]

The driver was an imminent threat to the general prublic by driving with undue care and attention or by operrerating an usafe vehicle (Ie burn tout head light, tail light, etc...).

Re:So they'll just add

[e3m4n]

unless they can search his cell phone while he is still driving, there can't be any imminent threat as the threat has been neutralized the moment the driver stopped his vehicle and surrendered to roadside interrogation. There could be other 'word trickery' employed about other things though. Using the patriot act to go after regular criminals is a good example of more police required to police said police.

Re:So they'll just add

[thaylin]

according to the ruling, which I have read most of, you would have to prove the data on the phone would be an imminent threat, which is impossible to do. They state in the opinion that you can search a phone for psychical threats such as a bomb or a blade hidden in the case, but data on a phone is not an imminent threat, it is just data.

Re:So they'll just add

[Beardo the Bearded]

Thank you, I wasn't sure what they meant by the imminent threat.

We had the same ruling up here in Canada, although you do have to lock your phone with a password. It requires a specific type of warrant, not a general warrant.

Re:So they'll just add

[Just Some Guy]

You're almost certainly right that they'll try it, but that's not what it means here. "Imminent" means "in the near future", and the idea is that cops would like to know if you just texted all your buddies to "come to the corner of 5th and Ghetto to kill the pigs arresting you". I can certainly see why police would like to know that and have a legitimate reason to.

However, there's no way to ask a phone (slash-camera slash-Rolodex (SCOTUS's words!)), "hey, can you give me just the information I need to know in the next 5 minutes and keep everything else safe for its owner?". Cops could use that as an excuse to get into your phone, and hey, since I'm already in here, let's see what this little miscreant was posting on Facebook... SCOTUS ruled that this is a flimsy excuse that doesn't justify the privacy abuses that police had committed, and so dismissed it explicitly as not being sufficient cause to invade your personal information repo.

Re:So they'll just add

[thaylin]

This is directly from the ruling:

Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.

And sorry about the errors of type and spelling in my OP.

Re:So they'll just add

[Charliemopps]

The driver was an imminent threat to the general prublic by driving with undue care and attention or by operrerating an usafe vehicle (Ie burn tout head light, tail light, etc...).

No. That doesn't make sense.

However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone. Just like they can pull you over, bring in a dog for no reason, claim the dog "alerted" on your car and then search it anyway. It's just a matter of a few DA's to come up with something that will pass some friendly judges scrutiny, do it a few times and only bring those cases to those friendly judges to avoid getting an unfavorable ruling... then later start using it on everyone and when questioned on it they'll claim "There is a set precede in law, used in dozens of cases, that shows this is a legitimate and justifiable search" and viola.

Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional, but they convict people using them every day.

Re:So they'll just add

[Shakrai]

That's essentially an extension of stop-and-frisk, which holds they can search you sans warrant to look for weapons or other items that may pose a danger to the officer. Other contraband discovered in the course of this search may be admissible, if the nature of such contraband was "readily apparent" to the officer, but it's not supposed to be license to go fishing.

Re:So they'll just add

[gstoddart]

Using the patriot act to go after regular criminals is a good example of more police required to police said police.

More police just adds more layers in which they can game the system.

What needs to happen is a permanent recording of all interactions with people so they can't just get together and decide what their story will be.

We need to fix the system so that it has an inherent "we can't just take you at your word" element in it. Because time after time the police have demonstrated they neither know, nor care about, the actual law.

Sure, many of them may be honest. But if we just assume that enough of them aren't, and set up a system which shows what really happened ... then maybe we might be better off.

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen stories in which the police collectively say "this is what happened", and when someone's cell phone video comes up they're proven to have been lying. And then their own internal review boards clear them of any wrong doing.

There needs to be more serious penalties for when police flout the law. And there needs to be more capturing of what actually happened, because when they do flout the law, the band together to hide that fact.

Increasingly, I think we need to apply the same thing to government. Because we can't trust them to follow the law either.

Re:So they'll just add

[Shakrai]

Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional

Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....

Re:So they'll just add

[gurps_npc]

The data could be an imminent threat. If you suspect someone of being one of two kidnappers, who threatened to kill their victim, and was arrested with the phone in hand.

Then there would be an imminent threat of death for the victim, allowing cops to search the phone for recent calls.

Re:So they'll just add

[thaylin]

That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.

Re:So they'll just add

[funwithBSD]

Who will watch the watchers?

Re:So they'll just add

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually they can, but it doesn't really matter much anyway what SCOTUS rules. These paramilitary groups and pentagon nerds will barely even notice the speed bump. The cops may have to rely more on parallel-construction when they get to the court room but that's the extent of the impact the ruling will have.

Re:So they'll just add

[93 Escort Wagon]

They state in the opinion that you can search a phone for psychical threats such as a bomb or a blade hidden in the case, but data on a phone is not an imminent threat, it is just data.

So my case with the built in rocket launcher is still fair game to them? That sucks!

Re:So they'll just add

[gstoddart]

Hopefully, everybody. Make the information public. Livestream it to the interwebs. Have citizen groups review it. Make review of the content mandatory if there is any dispute. If the police 'accidentally' turned them off or made sure they could't see anything .. throw out the case.

Do anything which opens the process and prevents abuse.

The cops will complain about their privacy and their rights, but using that to ignore ours is not what I'd call a good excuse.

Trusting them blindly clearly isn't working. So you structure the system so it says, "we don't actually trust you, and we don't trust the people who are supposed to be overseeing you".

By the people, for the people. Not whatever the hell we decide we want to do.

How many times have police officers need to be told they have no legal right to confiscate your phone, or force you to delete pictures from it? They obviously don't know or care what the law says. So, we obviously can't trust them.

Re:So they'll just add

[funwithBSD]

Eventually, citizens will record everything, and what you are suggesting is going to pass.

If the government can record anywhere, we the people should be recording anywhere.

Re:So they'll just add

[gstoddart]

Unless it would violate copyright.

And I wouldn't put it past them to say all actions of police and government are copyright, and therefore can't be recorded by you.

They'll always find a way to skirt around this if you let them.

Re:So they'll just add

[UnknowingFool]

For both Riley and Wurie (both defendants in the cases), they were arrested for other crimes when their cell phones were searched. There was no real imminent threat or flight risk or data destruction. A search warrant could have been obtained but was not.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to fix the system so that it has an inherent "we can't just take you at your word" element in it. Because time after time the police have demonstrated they neither know, nor care about, the actual law.

I distrust cops as much as anybody, but in a court of law, all you have is word. The whole point of court is that both sides lie to the judge, and the best liar wins :)

I'm kidding, of course, but my point is this: there's no reason to take or reject the word of a pig over the word of a defendant. If you get into a situation where the court disbelieves both parties, you get into some sort of wonky inquisitional justice system, where the defendant and prosecution themselves are effectively on trial. The alternative is to remain with the present system, in which the court takes both sides at their word, and leaves it up to each side's respective lawyers to blow holes in the other's credibility.

The way to get courts to stop taking the police's word over the word of the suspect is to better educate the public about bad policing practices, and to encourage LEOs to be more accountable by means of improving officer integrity (fat chance!) or by the realization that a camera strapped to an officer's vest tends to exonerate police departments against false accusations far more often than it hurts them when a pig crosses the line.

Changing the rules of evidence and/or the entire foundation of our court system doesn't prevent abuse. Educating the jury pool and motivating LEOs to change their own behavior might. As we've seen in this case, sometimes the courts get it right. The frustrating part is that they take so damn long to do so. The solution to that problem is a better-funded judicial branch that can process cases more quickly at the lower levels. (Oh, it'd be nice in theory for anyone to file a case against a hypothetical - but guaranteed to happen because politics - abuse of any new law, and get the process of unconstiutional laws started a few years earlier, but in practice, what we'd see is that for every law passed, every district court would be deluged with paperwork from those who fear they might be affected. Against the USAPATRIOT Act that might have been a feature, but the collateral damage is a thousand cases about the constitutionality of laws regulating the election of the local dogcatcher, the licensing of hairstylists, whether alcohol at 3.8% or 5.0% should be legal, etc. etc. etc. etc...)

Re:So they'll just add

[jratcliffe]

That is not an imminent threat to the officers, it is to the victim. they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers. You dont get to violate the 4th amendment just in case there is something happening to someone else.

Google "exigent circumstances."

Re:So they'll just add

[Frosty Piss]

thaylin said:

according to the ruling, which I have read most of, you would have to prove the data on the phone would be an imminent threat, which is impossible to do

Here's what will go down:

We had a "reasonable" suspicion that data on this phone would reveal plans for heinous crime to be carried out imminently, your Honor...

And the judge will allow the search and seizure.

Folks, illegally obtained evidence is allowed after the illegal search all the time . It is *VERY* rare for a judge to throw out evidence that was illegally obtained.

Re:So they'll just add

[jxander]

Simple solution: Require every uniformed officer to wear a Go-Pro (or similar device) with very VERY strict guidelines and harsh punishment for data that "just happens to go missing."

Re:So they'll just add

[spiritplumber]

"Undue care and attention"? Is that like when you get pulled over for driving too well? (Seen it happens, apparently it's an indication of a drug run. I was actually transporting some lab equipment that cost more than what I make in a year)

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you're just being silly. Cops aren't about to label their actions as "performance art", it'll make them feel like pansies.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

The coast guard?

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

... and viola.

please keep musical instruments out of this

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure, many of them may be honest. But if we just assume that enough of them aren't, and set up a system which shows what really happened ... then maybe we might be better off."

My policy is to never let the honest 1% of LEOs sway my opinion formed by the dishonest 99%. To do so is sheet foolishness.

Re:So they'll just add

[sjames]

I believe that's where they perform a special ritual (requires 2 cops for best effect.

Cop1: "Did you hear that? What was it?"

Cop2: "I think it's an email screaming for help! We better do a welfare check!"

Re:So they'll just add

[azadrozny]

What needs to happen is a permanent recording of all interactions with people so they can't just get together and decide what their story will be.

This is already happening in some jurisdictions. Still some issues to work out, but there is definitely movement in the right direction.

Re:So they'll just add

[whoever57]

However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone

But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.

Re:So they'll just add

[LoRdTAW]

The problem is a cop does not consider him/herself to be a citizen. They are cops, we are citizens. It's an "us vs them" mentality in which the cops are a privileged class of people who think they are the law and sometimes pretend they are above it. That mentality also leads them to form tight bonds in which they will cover for each other and outright lie about anything to keep their jobs and freedoms. And internal panels for review are just as bad often letting cops off the hook for perjury, assault and outright murder with little more than a slap on the wrist.

If you ask me law enforcement should retrain itself (pipe dream, I know but hopefully not) to see itself as citizens who are tasked with enforcing the law. They are not the law, they are not above it and they are subject to the very law they help enforce as everyone else is. They simply have a job to do though it is a very important one.

Re:So they'll just add

[HornWumpus]

Facts don't support your contention r.e. cameras exonerating the cops.

That has been true. When the cops have off buttons.

However the first trail of officer 'always on' cameras resulted in a 60% reduction in officer involved violence before they told anybody but the cops the cameras were on. Think about that; 60% reduction in ass beatings. Only the cops knew they were on camera.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.

That's essentially an extension of stop-and-frisk

I don't think you quite understand what "stop-and-frisk" is...

I'll give you a hint. Stop-and-frisk != being arrested.

Re:So they'll just add

[zildgulf]

I have never heard an Police Officer in our County Courts actually just say that statement without a follow up question from the Judge first. If the Police Officer says he got an anonymous tip our Judges want some paperwork, any paperwork, stating the tip was called in at such-and-such time and taken by such-and-such person. Otherwise our Judges want a search warrant presented, which are easy and quick for our Police to get anyway. This ruling makes our police officers' standard operating procedures on phone searches far less ambiguous and gives far less wiggle room for the Defense Attorneys.

Maybe I am not seeing this happen and you do is that you would think the police would have to prove the likelihood that the evidence obtained by search was legal. Often I see that the Defense Attorney must prove to the court that the search was illegal when the Police Officer makes his statement and show that he has some paperwork saying so. That makes the evidence gained by legally gray searches by default "legal" and it cannot be dismissed. It is not right but that is what happens.

Re:So they'll just add

[thaylin]

I realize what it is, but I also have read the ruling, have you?

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

... but data on a phone is not an imminent threat

Police can declare you a drug dealer and simply steal your phone. No warrant required.

Or they can declare you a terrorist and search everything for evidence. No due process required.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once pulled over for driving at around 48km/h in a 50 zone. I'd just recently got my Restricted licence and was extremely nervous about being on the roads, so was very careful. Apparently I was likely to either be drunk, or stoned. Who knew that being deathly afraid of all the other morons belting around town (we have the worst drivers in the country in my city) was a sign I was a dangerous driver?

Re:So they'll just add

[jratcliffe]

Yes, I have read it, and you can't say "they are only allowed to search, even before this ruling, if it is an imminent threat to the officers" and say that you also understand exigent circumstances. If the police kick down the door of a random apartment, and find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, the proceeds of that search (i.e. the drugs) couldn't be used to support a narcotics charge against the occupant, it'd be a 4th Amendment violation. If the police hear screams coming from within an apartment, though, and kick down the door to find the owner sitting there surrounded by drugs, and with another person tied to a chair, the drugs certainly CAN be used in evidence against the owner.

Similarly, if the police have good reason to believe that, say, an arrestee's phone contains the location of a ticking bomb, or an abducted child, they can search the phone, and use evidence found against the arrestee. Then, it becomes the judge's call as to whether the circumstances justified the search.

Re:So they'll just add

[thaylin]

Except you are moving the goal posts. None of that has anything to do with this ruling, which is if you are arrested for doing something unrelated to anything on your phone you phone cannot be searched, except for the loop whole of finding out there may be a imminent whipe.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

However the first trail of officer 'always on' cameras resulted in a 60% reduction in officer involved violence before they told anybody but the cops the cameras were on. Think about that; 60% reduction in ass beatings. Only the cops knew they were on camera.

I'd be OK with a rule of evidence that says if the cop-camera has an off switch and the switch is off, the cop's testimony inadmissible ;)

As for the reduction in violence? Problem solved. Either put no off switch on the camera, or make the off switch do nothing, and use the same nondisclosure contracts like they're using with the Stingrays. The chief of police will leak the information to the officers anyways, but everyone has plausible deniability. The goal isn't to immunize police departments against lawsuits when abuse happens, it's to reduce abuse incidents in the first place.

Re:So they'll just add

[Darinbob]

Until the judge slaps them down for this and throws out the case.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

Authority figures make up "imminent threats" all the time. All of them. Parents, cops, presidents, international bankers, and everyone inbetween.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

>I have lost count of the number of times I've seen stories in which the police collectively say "this is what happened", and when someone's cell phone video comes up they're proven to have been lying. And then their own internal review boards clear them of any wrong doing.

Is it not a possibility to sue them yourself? As far as I know, it is mandatory to tell the truth in court, all what goes on in court is transcripted, so it should be easy to point out when someone lied.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you really shouldnt respond in that manner. they do have the authority to compell you to perform the field sobriety test, or breathalyzer, or whatever else your state proscribes. not saying you should bow to their every demand just to go on your way with the least fuss out of fear. but in terms of stopping drunk driving (as you said, a compelling interest), the cop is usually just trying to do his job and make the roads a little safer. most cops really arent giant bullies who just want to antagonize plebes, so dont make his job too hard on him. if youre not drunk, jump throug the hoops to prove it, and be on your way so he can get back to finding the actual drunk drivers.

(cue the cop hateing replies)

Re:So they'll just add

[CaptainDork]

An interesting point of view ... I would think that "copyright" as applied to police and government would raise the question as to ownership of the material. Further, I would tend to support the idea that police and government actions are subject to freedom of information claims, and that citizens have rights to observe and record. A related issue, I think, is police reaction to bystanders recording police activities. Police reaction varies from, "Just please don't use a flash; don't get too close; and be safe," to confiscation of the camera phone and actual destruction.

Re:So they'll just add

[gurps_npc]

Your beliefs are not held by the police - or the courts. Cops are allowed to chase a man into a building if they believe a hostage will be killed if they don't do it.

Re:So they'll just add

[funwithBSD]

They are paid from our taxes, so how could their actions be considered copyrighted?

Re:So they'll just add

[funwithBSD]

We should have never given them guns... made them stick with a whistle and nightstick.

Re:So they'll just add

[Shakrai]

the cop is usually just trying to do his job and make the roads a little safer. most cops really arent giant bullies who just want to antagonize plebes, so dont make his job too hard on him

Hey, I agree with you. I said you're perfectly free to refuse to answer questions, not that it's advisable to do so.

Checkpoints aren't the common around these parts so it's been years since I went through one. From what I recall, we spent three minutes bullshitting about Ice Hockey (I was on my way home from a game), I guess he was bored. There certainly wasn't a "Papers Please." attitude during the encounter. He glanced at my registration/inspection sticker, asked where I was going, and started shooting the shit.

Re:So they'll just add

[Charliemopps]

Think about DUI checkpoints. Clearly unconstitutional

Says who? The precedent suggests otherwise. I don't really care for the concept myself, but I can recognize a compelling state interest when I see one. You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....

Sorry, you're wrong. They have an end-run around that as well. You're required by law to have a license to drive. To get a licenses you must first sign an agreement that you agree to submit to any request by law enforcement to a breathalyzer. If you refuse, you agree to give up your license. If you end up at a chekcpoint you are not required to submit to the breathalyze, but you will lose your license if you don't. This is why you see DA's that get pulled over refuse the test. It's the smart thing to do. You are going to lose your license anyway, at least you can get away without a fine or criminal charge.

The defacto result is, the check point IS a search of every vehicle that happens to go down that road. It's a search for a very specific thing... alcohol, but it's still a warantless search of your person. The evidence might not end up being able to be used against you in a legal proceeding, but it definitely will get used against you.

If you can only express your right to unreasonable searches when you're not breaking the law (which is the case in checkpoints) then you never really had that right in the first place.

Re:So they'll just add

[Charliemopps]

However, they will still abuse citizens by simply claiming they had probable cause to search the phone

But that's the whole point of the ruling. The police would need to get a warrant. They can't simply claim "probably cause" to search a cellphone without a warrant.

SCOTUS did not, nor will it ever prevent law enforcement from searching you if they have probable cause. If they see you dial a number on your phone, and then see a bomb go off across the street while you smile and flip off the bank you just blew up, they will have probable cause and be fully justified in searching your phone. What this ruling says however, is that they can't walk onto the street before the blast and just search every phone of every person that just so happens to be there. They need reason to suspect you personally. They can't just blanket declare that all phones are suspicious.

Re:So they'll just add

[david_thornley]

Not going to happen. Police like to talk to informants, who aren't going to talk if it's going to be public information. Police talk to crime victims, who don't want all the details to be public information (I'd imagine particularly rape victims). We need the recordings kept safe but secure, so they can be brought out if a court deems it proper.

Re:So they'll just add

[david_thornley]

Performance art isn't copyrightable anyway. Recordings of performance art are.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts don't support your contention r.e. cameras exonerating the cops.

That has been true. When the cops have off buttons.

However the first trail of officer 'always on' cameras resulted in a 60% reduction in officer involved violence before they told anybody but the cops the cameras were on. Think about that; 60% reduction in ass beatings. Only the cops knew they were on camera.

It's just the 60% of bad apples that spoil the bunch. And the 40% that didn't report them.

Re:So they'll just add

[Anonymous Coward]

SCOTUS did not, nor will it ever prevent law enforcement from searching you if they have probable cause.

You are an idiot. This ruling is exactly what you claim it is not. Probable cause gives you justification for a warrant, it does not make a warrantless search legal.

Re:So they'll just add

[JeffAtl]

You're perfectly free to respond to every single question asked at a checkpoint with "I don't talk to the police, may I leave now?" and there's not a damned thing they can do about it, unless of course you're under the influence.....

And if you do that, they will "suspect" that you are intoxicated and detain you. There's a saying that cops love, "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

Re:So they'll just add

[RyoShin]

What needs to happen is a permanent recording of all interactions with people so they can't just get together and decide what their story will be.

Agreed. At the same time, legal teams and individual citizens can tie up the courts with counter-claims, so not only would constant monitoring of the police keep the system from abusing the people, but it would decrease the potential for the people to abuse the system. So these systems save a lot of headache (at the very least) for a lot of people and should be mandatory for all standard police forces.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

unanimously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this imposter pretending to be Clarence Thomas?

Re:unanimously?

[funwithBSD]

I was thinking Ginsberg was the pod person.

Re:unanimously?

[jandrese]

What do you mean? He voted same as Scalia and didn't say anything. Classic Thomas.

"Privacy comes at a cost."

[WalrusSlayer]

....or in other words: Freedom isn't Free.

Re:"Privacy comes at a cost."

[Anonymous Coward]

It costs a buck o five.

Re:"Privacy comes at a cost."

[Virtucon]

That's not the right use. of "Freedom isn't Free"

"Freedom Is Not Free" was first coined by retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, Walter Hitchcock, of New Mexico Military Institute. The idiom expresses gratitude for the service of members of the military, implicitly stating that the freedoms enjoyed by many citizens in many democracies are only possible through the risks taken and sacrifices made by those in the military, drafted or not. The saying is often used to convey respect specifically to those who gave their lives in defense of freedom.

It is official.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens have replaced the Supreme Court of the United States.

Re:It is official.

[bugs2squash]

No, more like androids

"Privacy comes at a cost"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And non-privacy also comes at a cost.

I am tired of the government whining about about the cost of privacy. The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution. If the government is not willing to work under the constraints of the Constitution of the United States of America, they can emigrate to Saudi Arabia or elsewhere.

The United States of America are supposed to be a free country. Not a safe prison.

Take it or leave it.

Re:"Privacy comes at a cost"

[the eric conspiracy]

Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

They've clearly replaced the old incompetent reptilians with newer, competent ones

Imminent Threat

[Jane Q. Public]

This is reasonable, as police historically have not needed a warrant if there is an "imminent threat".

However, any genuine "imminent threat" from a cell phone would be an extremely -- and I mean very extremely -- rare circumstance.

(Note for citizens: this is not a good reason to not lock your phone. Police have been known to bend the rules. I would like to see that change, but today you should be careful.)

Re:Imminent Threat

[Br00se]

Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

There is always the imminent threat of stirring up public unrest when somebody is posing the risk of sending somewhere a video he captured of a cop beating a "suspect" to death without reason.

Re:Imminent Threat

[thaylin]

That MAY be possible, but that is not an imminent threat that allows you to bypass someones rights on the off chance that may be the case. It has to be an imminent threat to the officers making the arrest. They actually covered a case in the ruling that they previously ruled on, United States v. Robinson, where an officer searched and found a crumpled pack of cigs, it had no cigs but it had heroin in it. The ruled that search constitutional because what was inside could have been an imminent threat to the officer, however they ruled data alone can never be a threat to an officer in this case.

Re:Imminent Threat

[NotSanguine]

Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.

IANAL, but I believe what you are referring to is Exigent Circumstances rather than Imminent Threat.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Nethemas the Great]

The term "imminent threat" like everything else as it relates to matters of law is as fluid and malleable as the entity wielding the power wants it to be.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Nethemas the Great]

Oh, I suppose the device could be a dead-man switch to "something interesting." Or for kicks and giggles, the actual "something interesting." Regardless, SCOTUS doesn't have much power to control the boots on the ground.

Re:Imminent Threat

[UnknowingFool]

I think the Imminent Threat refers to the body searches that police do to determine that suspects have no weapons on their person when arrested.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Jane Q. Public]

The term "imminent threat" like everything else as it relates to matters of law is as fluid and malleable as the entity wielding the power wants it to be.

Not really. We have the concept of stare decisis which largely prevents that from happening, except perhaps temporarily.

Re:Imminent Threat

[NotSanguine]

I think the Imminent Threat refers to the body searches that police do to determine that suspects have no weapons on their person when arrested.

My point exactly. GP said:

...I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims....

GP's example would be Exigent Circumstances and not Imminent Threat, IMHO.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Nethemas the Great]

except perhaps temporarily.

Which is precisely the point. When you're on the receiving end of extrajudicial treatment, I'm sure you'll find great comfort in "stare decisis".

Re:Imminent Threat

[jxander]

The ruling actually spells it out "imminent threat" as a physical threat.

Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.

Re:Imminent Threat

[jxander]

Check my reply below. SCOTUS defined imminent threat as something that can physically harm the officers, or facilitate escape (i.e. A razor blade or handcuff key tucked into your phone case)

Re:Imminent Threat

[Jane Q. Public]

Which is precisely the point. When you're on the receiving end of extrajudicial treatment, I'm sure you'll find great comfort in "stare decisis".

Again I say, "Not Really".

I mean, yes these things do happen. But in most cases you will probably eventually get relief. It is this fear of repercussion which usually prevents administrations from grossly abusing their power, even temporarily.

Of course, that hasn't stopped Obama and his cronies. But personally, I could this as the worst administration in history.

And I'm looking forward to America getting even.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Idarubicin]

But personally, I could this as the worst administration in history.

That wasn't the worst sentence in history, but it's got to be right up there.

I'll leave aside your amusingly delusional implication that unwarranted invasions of privacy somehow didn't happen - or weren't attempted by law enforcement with similar enthusiasm and vigour - under the preceding 43 Presidents...

Re:Imminent Threat

[Jane Q. Public]

That wasn't the worst sentence in history, but it's got to be right up there.

You have nothing better to do that criticize other peoples' typographical errors?

I'll leave aside your amusingly delusional implication that unwarranted invasions of privacy somehow didn't happen - or weren't attempted by law enforcement with similar enthusiasm and vigour - under the preceding 43 Presidents...

Not only that, you have reading comprehension issues. I specifically stated that these things DO happen.

Re:Imminent Threat

[squiggleslash]

Which actually makes me wonder if we're not far off seeing handcuffs that are locked and unlocked using a Bluetooth key...

Re:Imminent Threat

[Jane Q. Public]

And to be even clearer: "could" for "count" and "that" for "than" are due to an errant spell-checker, not even my own typing.

Re:Imminent Threat

[Anonymous Coward]

but if during said search immient threat the sim card should accidentally be detached from the phone then it it is no longer part of the phone and is now in plain sight and therefore available.

Re:Imminent Threat

[TheGratefulNet]

lock your phones?

cops have phone de-anti-un-lockers (uhm, what? nevermind, I'm on a roll!).

you can't even prove they used them to unlock your phone.

cops can get away with murder. you think they'll 'follow the law' when its inconvenient to them?

at least this is a partial step in the right direction; this ruling. but cops don't care about laws. not really. and there's not a GOD DAMNED thing you, as a citizen, can do about it.

make cops personally liable (remove the shield of protection they have) and then we can start to have fairness and justice again.

Re:Imminent Threat

[kwbauer]

No, it can be an imminent threat to anyone but judges are pretty savvy about noticing that not every single person a cop talks to is actually engaged in kidnapping and that if the accused in court for a drug offense with all the evidence gathered from a phone search based on the imminent threat of a kidnapping victim being killed but the accused is not also accused of kidnapping and nobody was ever reported to have been kidnapped, etc.

Re:Imminent Threat

[rastos1]

data on the phone can endanger no one.

If phone display shows a countdown app that sets of a bomb remotely?

Re:Imminent Threat

[jxander]

Highly doubtful. Too easy to circumvent (not that current cuffs are impossible to beat)

If they wanted to get high-speed with handcuff locks, it would most likely be a physical dongle with a complete enshrouded NFC device. It would have some kind of spring-loaded trap door type mechanism. Sticking the key into the cuffs pulls back the door, NFC does it's magic and the cuffs open. Something like that ...

Re:FP

[Java Pimp]

What don't you believe? That SCOTUS made a good decision for once? Or that you missed First Post by that much?

"Imminent Threats"

[FuzzNugget]

Something tells me the occurrence of such claims will be increasing dramatically.

Moot point

[PPH]

The NSA, FBI and local cops are well beyond caring about what the courts or Congress thinks. If our legal system had any teeth in it, this might be different. But if all the courts are going to do is say, "We have ruled. Fail to comply and we will issue another ruling." the cops are just going to ROTFL.

Re:Moot point

[PolygamousRanchKid]

They'll just go ahead and search your phone anyway, by whatever means they have. They won't be able to submit what they find as evidence . . . until they get a search warrant afterwards.

They can still use anything they find as part of their investigations . . . to get other evidence by legal means, which they then can submit to a judge for a warrant.

Re:Moot point

[gurps_npc]

Not true at all for the FBI.

The FBI locks people up, but they don't control the prisons. The prison system is very obedient to the courts. So if the court says the FBI screwed up, we have to let them go, the prisons lets them go.

When speaking about the NSA on the other hand, you have a better argument. The NSA does not lock people up where the US courts can release them. In fact, they are more likely to just kill someone.

Re:Moot point

[gstoddart]

Or, they'll go with their new favorite toy ... illegally search your phone, and then go through the bullshit of parallel construction.

And then it would be "we got an anonymous tip, and confirmed it when we checked his cell phone", which will be used to cover up "we illegally searched his phone, and then called in our own tip".

And none of them will be charged with perjury or obstruction of justice.

Until we start seeing police officers charged and jailed for this crap, they'll keep doing it.

The police have become little better than those in banana republics where you have to assume they're all corrupt, because there's enough of them to make assuming the one you've got now is honest is a bad idea.

Re:Moot point

[Anonymous Coward]

As a "local cop" I have to agree. We're all terrible people. Corrupt to the core. For example, just the other day I was hangin' with Fin and Benson browbeating this guy. I mean, he was really gettin' it. Everyone was up in his face, Eliot choked him a little, and then there was this big dramatic moment where the Lt. comes in and bellows, "take a break!" Anyway, I then turned off the TV and went to work. There I arrested this guy. He had a cell phone on him, but it was before this ruling so I took the cellphone out and asked if he needed to write down any numbers before I took him to jail. He said, "yeah." Got HIM, baby! Now it's on! So, I totally violate his rights by giving him the phone and asking him what numbers he needs. Stupidly, he tells me and I write them down on the inmate property sheet. Ha ha! He's really screwing himself while I screw the constitution! Once he's done he hands the phone back to me (He's really fucked now), I make sure it's off, and I put it into the property bag and seal it and sign the seal. I then transport him to the jail and hand in his sealed property bag with the paperwork (take that constitution!)

This ruling ain't gonna change shit for me the average corrupt cop. Now, I don't know what cops you're running into that are searching your phone (sounds like a waste of time to me), but I'm sure we all do it. Whether a New York cop, Chicago cop, small southern town cop, or a mid-size city cop like me, we're all the same of the hive mind. We're not people in any sense.

Re:Moot point

[HornWumpus]

At least in the banana republic there is an established protocol for paying the god damn bribe.

We're in that awkward stage, we know they are all corrupt. But the manners of the extra $50 tucked behind the licence haven't developed.

Re:Moot point

[PPH]

Not true at all for the FBI.
The FBI locks people up

Minor distinction: The FBI (and local cops) apprehend suspects. And place them in custody on behalf of the court system. The courts are the ones who officially 'lock them up'. Or release them.

But the cops' primary metric is arrests. If the prosecutor can't make a case, they just blame it on soft judges and sympathetic juries. Of course, the police and prosecutor work for the same politicians. So send enough bad cases to the court and eventually the city council will have to dope slap the chief of police.

I know of a guy who is on our local police department's 'watch list'. Because he pissed off someone on the city council and they told the police chief to lean on him. Now the cops are never going to build a case (most of them know the case is bogus). But according to my cop source, they get credit for keeping this guy on the books. So they do. There are no points taken off for putting a name on a list and not being able to develop a case for 10 years. On the other hand, they can get budget based on the length of that list.

Give them a dump of cell phone records and they could probably justify an entire department chasing down babysitter's phone numbers.

Oh, and the NSA doesn't kill people. They subcontract that out to the CIA. So if someone fucks up, the NSA didn't pull the trigger. And the CIA can just blame it on devective intel.

Re:Moot point

[AHuxley]

The good news is lawyers and law reformers now know the type of devices now used in parallel construction and how it is hidden/sealed/never mentioned per city/state.
The good news is lawyers and law reformers can ask/search cities and states for the payment for the devices or related equipment (antennas to increase range) that was not hidden/removed in time.
The good news is lawyers and law reformers can ask/search cities and states for advice offered by local LEO relating to sale/use of the devices or equipment to other cities/states.
That FOIA paper trail still exists in some towns, cities, courts relating to payment and local LEO understanding of the devices. You wont find much in any open court but some of the early now sealed case work might be telling if it can be found by legal teams/press skilled in such searches :)
This is not the UK in the distant past where related telco equipment had a very closed life (make, ship, use, removal was all gov realted). In the US you have a sale pitch and the related paperwork.

Borders

[OzPeter]

Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.

Re:Borders

[Charliemopps]

Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.

You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.

Business leaders get nearly slave labor. People can't report illegal activity protest poor conditions.
Democrats get to pretend to fight for the little guy. They offer amnesty because they know it will kill the issue, continuing the problem and giving them more political capital because they're seen as doing the right thing... even though they aren't doing anything really.
Republicans get to pretend they care about the American worker, by keeping the foreigners out. But what they are really doing is keeping those workers (who are already here) in the shadows... there-by assuring that they wont even make minimum wage and making them an even greater threat to American jobs. To perpetuate the issue, every time it comes up they suggest we put the military on the border, witch they know is completely impossible.

Re:Borders

[OzPeter]

Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.

You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.

Umm .. you do know that I am talking about the confiscation and inspection of electronics in your possession as you legally cross a border into the US?

Re:Borders

[the eric conspiracy]

SCOTUS has already ruled Customs can search anything it pleases at the border including electronic devices because one of the fundamental powers of a sovereign is to protect its borders.

So that's up to Congress. Which means anything common sense is right out.

Re:Borders

[Idarubicin]

Er...what does the warrantless, essentially-unrestricted search and/or seizure of personal electronic devices - generally belonging to U.S. citizens, legal residents, and legitimate travellers - have to do with immigration policy?

Re:Borders

[HornWumpus]

Where do you find these sub minimum workers? In California the Mexicans at H.D. won't work for less then $100/day.

Granting they are worth the extra money vs. hiring suburban teenagers for minimum. The Mexicans will work hard as long as you watch them. You'd need remote control shock collars on the teenagers to get any work at all.

Re:Borders

[Charliemopps]

Now all the US needs is a similar commonsense approach at border crossings.

You're assuming our government wants to fix the problem. They don't. The border issue is good for everyone involved with the exception of the immigrants.

Umm .. you do know that I am talking about the confiscation and inspection of electronics in your possession as you legally cross a border into the US?

lol... no I didn't. :-D
No seriously, I thought you were intentionally making a non sequitur in the vein of "Oh look, the government fixed one random problem, how about this unrelated one?" and... wow... that's god damned funny.

Re:FP

[goombah99]

no problemo. they will just buy the self-same info from facebook or amazon and it's "affiliates" (anyone with money).

Double speak

[Trachman]

I think that we are getting deeper into the woods and Supreme Court can actually keep two opposing concepts in mind at the time and be ok with it. Supreme court decision covers police and says that police cannot spy on cellphone owners. Can somebody explain, if, then NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, TSA, DIA and thousands of other agencies can continue spying? What if policeman will call his colleague at DEA, FBI and will ask for data: happens all the times. What about the usual process, where DIA employee working with NSA data while spying on US people will give a tip to local police to check "that person". Also, does the ruling cover only cellphones? What about the rest of devices, such as desktops, tablets etc. Ruling says that other devices are covered. The outcome is that spying and collection will continue as it has continued. People who have privacy concerns will be pacified with this ruling. Finest example of doublespeak and doublethink.

Re:Double speak

[wiredog]

In those cases, the information (since it was gained as part of an intel and not LEO operation) would not be admissible.

Re:Double speak

[BlueStrat]

As far as we know at this time, subject to further revelations/leaks which may challenge this, FBI, NSA, etc. are searching communications, not data stored on cellphones.

FTFY

Strat

Re:Double speak

[Trachman]

Not according to the Snowden leaks and subsequent disclosures. They search it, they copy and catalog your contact lists and all other data. Please read again, but all the cellphone data and communications is currently being "backed up". How about police using microphone on your iphone to listen to you? As strange as it sounds it may be infringing third amendment, which says that you do no need to quarter uniformed people (no need to quarter the troops). Using the same logic it is not fair that somebody would be using your own assets against you.

Re:Double speak

[Anonymous Coward]

This, sadly, is only true if the police are silly enough to mention that they got this information in this way.

Re:Double speak

[Darinbob]

Even if acting on a tip, they need to get a warrant. No fishing expeditions.

Re:FP

[AvitarX]

I kind of do.

It's pretty obvious that the data on cell phones is "papers" from the fourth amendment, and the phones themselves are "effects".

Re:FP

[gstoddart]

It's pretty obvious that the data on cell phones is "papers" from the fourth amendment, and the phones themselves are "effects".

Obvious, except to the government lawyers and/or attorneys general who issue the guidance which says "nah, we can do anything we want".

Because they've been arguing that this isn't your "papers and effects", and therefore they could whatever they pleased.

Because government and law enforcement have mostly been focusing on how to ignore the Constitution and claim it doesn't apply.

It's simply too inconvenient for them to have to follow all of these pesky laws.

Does this apply to the TSA?

[dszd0g]

Does this apply to the TSA who regularly searches laptops and cell phones?

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you confusing the TSA with customs and border patrol?

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[jratcliffe]

Yup, he/she is, and no, it won't apply, since screening at the border is a different animal.

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[Jason Levine]

I would think that it should since the ruling should since the Supreme Court said the police could search the device for physical threats but not the data on the device. So the TSA could make sure that your laptop wasn't somehow hiding a knife but couldn't look through your computer to see who you e-mailed recently. Of course, this is in theory. Applying it in practice is another matter. You can point out Supreme Court rulings until you are blue in the face and the TSA will force you to decide between 1) submitting to their practices to make your flight, 2) being kicked out of the airport and missing your flight, or 3) being arrested and missing your flight.

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[gurps_npc]

No. The TSA does not care about imminent threat.

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[Nethemas the Great]

Not really, they're looking for porn and other related peripherals, not imminent threats.

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this apply to the TSA who regularly searches laptops and cell phones?

http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/01/ca...

Re:Does this apply to the TSA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough, they keep expanding the definition of "border". Currently, DHS asserts that the border actually extends to any location within 100 miles of the country's edge (or, as they call it, the country's "external boundary"). You can't make this shit up. The US is doomed.

Great

[Controlio]

Now if we can just add language to somehow apply this to apps...

A commercial entity being allowed to download all of the info out of my smart phone makes me no less comfortable than the government doing it. Especially when it's through a trojan horse such as Candy Crush or Angry Birds.

This is the only reason I root my Android. If reasonable restrictions were in place, I wouldn't need to. But until the advertising giant and information harvester that writes the OS has a change of heart, I will continue to restrict said access through any means necessary.

Well unless...

[Redmancometh]

This is great unless you're one of the 2/3 of people that live within 100 miles of the border in a "constitution exempt" zone.

Re:Well unless...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where would that be? If there is an area where the constitution is exempt, then the government would have no power to operate there. The constitution is what grants them their power.

Re:Well unless...

[gstoddart]

Where would that be?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but they can conduct a border search up to 100 miles from the border, with no probable cause or justification (or a warrant).

Government keeps making exceptions and saying "well, that doesn't apply here".

In this specific case, you can completely ignore the intent of the 4th amendment by saying "border search".

And, since about two thirds of US citizens are in this zone, most Americans can be searched in a way which would otherwise be illegal, but defended under a horseshit exemption.

This is what is referred to as the area which is now magically exempt from the Constitution. Because we can search anybody, for any reason, and bypass your Constitutional protections.

Re:Well unless...

[tekrat]

Isn't the entire USA a "Constitutional Exempt Zone"?
It sure feels that way.

Re:Well unless...

[the eric conspiracy]

Nope. This applies to police searches after arrests. Anywhere in the United States. Period.

Only customs agents have the ability to conduct warrantless searches and only at ports of entry. These ports of entry are at either airports or at the border.

Customs can also establish stations for immigration control up to 100 miles from the border, and stop and question vehicle occupants at these locations. HOWEVER any searches at these internal spots must follow the normal constitutional rules. The only 4th amendment protection lost here is the fact that these internal checkpoints allow stopping and questioning without cause. Not searches.

Re:Well unless...

[the eric conspiracy]

Uh no. From your citation:

Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports).

Re:Well unless...

[the eric conspiracy]

No they can't. See ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ v. UNITED STATES

http://scholar.google.com/scho...

Re:Well unless...

[Uberbah]

Despite federal law allowing certain federal agents to conduct suspicionless search and seizures within 100 miles of the border, the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports).

Also from his citation: the Feds consider the "international border" to be 100 miles inland. Back to square one.

Re:Well unless...

[the eric conspiracy]

The Feds can assume anything they want. However the Supreme Court does not have to agree, and it's THEIR opinion that counts here.

See the case citation in the other comment for more details.

Re:Well unless...

[Redmancometh]

As the brief states the cop did not have probable cause for the stop OR the search. The cop not having PC to stop the car was the issue..not a lack of PC to search it.

The highway was 25 miles away by air, but I didnt see it specify how far by vehicle. Further it specifically states it did not intersect the border.

All of these are specified as reasons for the decision.

So maybe the power has some stipulations, but it certainly exists, and has for 100+ years.

Re:Well unless...

[Darinbob]

There's no such thing as a 100 mile constitution free zone, though it was reported it was greatly misunderstood (or greatly exaggerated). Searches within the extended border zone must fit a set of criteria. None of it applies to searches by police at traffic stops.

See http://news.yahoo.com/does-con...

Now while this certainly is not a great thing for freedoms, it is not at all the hysterical claim of a zone where the constitution no longer applies that ACLU tries to claim it to be. They took several different ideas and combined them together to invent a new entity. Basically the "functional border", which is the actual border crossings plus international airports, does allow searches without reasonable suspicion which is a bad thing, but that functional border is NOT 100 miles wide.

The problem here comes from repeating something that is untrue over and over in order to make a point so that the listeners just stop paying attention even if there may be a truth buried within those lies. If you want people to pay attention to the diminishing civil liberties then tell the truth that can be verified instead of repeating myths.

Re:Well unless...

[Darinbob]

False, see: http://news.yahoo.com/does-con...

There is a difference between the extended border zone, where a reasonable cause to search must exist, and the functional border where no cause is needed. Anyone within that 100 mile extended border zone still requires a reasonable cause to search, even according to the Department of Homeland Security's own rules.

Re:Well unless...

[Anonymous Coward]

So anything within 100 miles of an international airport... http://www.gomapper.com/travel/list-of-international-airports-in/united-states-of-america.html

or an international border?!?

Re:Well unless...

[volmtech]

Wouldn't a well defended wall along the border alleviate that problem? There seems to be some asinine UN accord that some fool signed that allows any foreigner on our soil, who is not from Mexico or Canada, to claim refugee status. Many of those recent invaders have been coached to say that.

Bet

[jodido]

Any takers on a bet that Congress will pass a law making legal what the Supremes just ruled against?

Re:Bet

[jratcliffe]

It would take a Constitutional amendment, not just a law.

Re:Bet

[preaction]

I'll take it, proviso that if SCOTUS strikes the law down as unconstitutional in less than 5 year... make that 10 ye... How long has the USA PATRIOT Act been around?

Re:Bet

[Virtucon]

Unless the draft and amendment to the US Constitution and have the states ratify it. No I can't see them doing this. Of course in the future, the SCOTUS may review another case about some guy who was convicted on what they found on his phone without a warrant yada yada yada..

Re:Bet

[gurps_npc]

I will take that bet. The GOP is currently pushing privacy for american citizens, claiming Obama is evil. For that reason, Congress will not rule against a pro-american privacy ruling by the SCOTUS. Now, if terrorists were somehow involved, the GOP would say "Rights? Foreigners don't got no rights!"

Re:Bet

[Anonymous Coward]

They just have to amend telecoms laws making the owning and operating a personal phone illegal for the clients, deny the selling of burner phones and tie all phones to the service provider contracts, making the phones their property. And require all contracts to include a certain clause about personal information. The market is already going this way, so both of the major parties can embrace it without reservations.

Re:Bet

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you give a rat's shit about the Constitution. The NSA would not need large data centers if anybody did.

Alito voted against the cops?

[snsh]

During his confirmation hearings, Ted Kennedy noted that Sam Alito "never saw a police search he didn't like."

Alito wrote up his own opinion on this decision, not-quite agreeing with the rest of the bench, but still voting against this particular search. I guess there's a first for everything.

Re:Alito voted against the cops?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alito concurred in Jones.

Re:Alito voted against the cops?

[operagost]

Because Ted Kennedy was a straight-shooting guy who would never denigrate anyone, even if they were from the opposing party.

Re:Alito voted against the cops?

[s.petry]

Well, there is a whole lot of noise currently in the US regarding revolt and usurping career politicians. A couple elections recently here and in the UK have shown that it's a bigger issue than certain chain yankers (intentional ad hominem, no I'm not apologizing) wanted to believe. If they want to maintain power they have to do some things they may dislike.

The thing that us Citizens need to learn really fast is that this incremental power build up has taken a long time using many steps forward and few steps backward. If we really want things better this should not be something that stifles the crowds, but is a confirmed step in the process of restoring the republic (albeit a small one). It's going to be a long march to fix things, so a single step is miniscule.. but something.

Re:Alito voted against the cops?

[Uberbah]

Because Ted Kennedy was a straight-shooting guy who would never denigrate anyone, even if they were from the opposing party.

Because deflecting/whining about Kennedy means Alito's fondness for authoritarians doesn't exist. Or something.

Double speak

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI, NSA, etc. are searching communications, not data stored on cellphones.

Re:FP

[AvitarX]

Agreed, but generally the supreme court gets it right (not always, but maybe 75% of the time).

Especially when they have conflicting rulings to work with.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

What don't you believe? That SCOTUS made a good decision for once? Or that you missed First Post by that much?

What are you people on? This does nothing, ""Phones may still be searched under limited circumstances (imminent threats), but this looks like a clear win for privacy"" (imminent threats) the same shit the NSA and police already use to search the phones, and they can just go to the service provider to get what they want, and both law enforcement can hide behind the Patriot Act, and the service provider can claim they didn't know, or they didn't want to get on the bad side of law enforcement. And considering few people have to money to fight their cases in courts let alone file an appeal, and motions to have bad evidence thrown out, a lawsuit or even get any interest from the ACLU, and other "freedom fighter" groups to have someone do something to help them out.

The already "browse" the phones in accidents, in arrests, and if they find something 'browsing' they go get a warrant. It the same shit they already do with peoples vehicles, homes, personal property, whatever you want to call it. This is nothing more, as are the previous rulings that have been reported on, as political pandering. This shit went on for years and the courts always came up with some bullshit to ignore it. They were hoping it would lose public interest, and because it hasn't and it is being reported throughout the worlds news, now the have to find a way for it to die off.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

The truly competent criminals become politicians anyway, so cell phone searches really aren't that useful in fighting crime.

And even if it were the NSA has all the data already.

Imminent Threat

[DodgeRules]

IMHO and IANAL, an imminent threat where they would need to search the phone would be if the phone contained info on a bomb about to go off or info on an abduction where the abducted person is expected to be killed or harmed. Having drugs on the suspect or a suspect speeding is not an imminent threat.

Finally a small step back towards sanity

[robstout]

I'm very happy to see this. Its a start.

Re:Finally a small step back towards sanity

[Nethemas the Great]

If whitewash is a sanity measure, then sure, sanity wins the day.

Re:Finally a small step back towards sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait. the decisions on the ACA and immigration and a few others are yet to come.

What about...

[The Grim Reefer]

The TSA? Can they still require you to give them passwords? Or copy data from your phone?

What's to stop the police from searching a phone once in their possession in a different room once a person has been arrested? Granted, they will need a warrant to make anything they find admissible, but a warrant can be requested later once they decide it's worth the trouble.

Does this also apply to the monitoring programs that the US marshals have coached local law enforcement to lie about to judges?

Re:What about...

[ThatsMyNick]

The TSA can never force you to give them your password (or copy data from your phone for the matter). CBP (Customs and Border Protection) always could and still can. Know your acronyms and rights folks, it can be very useful.

It obviously doesnt cover lying by law enforcement. But that is already a crime.

Re:What about...

[The Grim Reefer]

My mistake. That's what I meant, but when I think of travel I generally think of the TSA regarding all things bad. CBP has always been courteous and professional with me. However they should not be allowed to do this.

Re:What about...

[Totenglocke]

You're technically correct - TSA can't force you to give them your passwords, but they will "detain" you until you do. If that means you miss your flight or end up locked in a cell, they don't care. That is why I refuse to fly anymore - we have a terrorist organization running our airports and they will do everything they can to permanently ruin your life if you so much as wince when they shove their fingers up your ass.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is part of why TSA really stands for Tewwowists Scweening Amewicans.

Re:What about...

[the eric conspiracy]

No they can't. The Fifth Amendment prevents them from forcing you to divulge passwords unless they have some other evidence that what is on the lappy is criminal (i.e. kiddy porn).

Re:What about...

[ThatsMyNick]

Do read https://www.eff.org/wp/defendi... . ICE and CBP do have the authority to detain you or refuse entry into the country (for non-US citizens), or detain your devices (the last one happens often), if you refuse to give them the password.

Re:What about...

[the eric conspiracy]

From the article you cited:

"If a border agent asks you to provide an account password or encryption passphrase or to decrypt data stored on your device, you donâ(TM)t have to comply. Only a judge can force you to reveal information to the government, and only to the extent that you do not have a valid Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination."

You do not have to give them a password. They can keep the device or anything else you are carrying. In fact you do not have to answer any questions if you are a US citizen. They can detain you for any reason or no reason. Whether or not you refuse to give a password has nothing to do with their ability to detain you.

However you do NOT have to give them the password.

Re:What about...

[Patent Lover]

They TSA cannot detain you. They are not a law enforcement agency. They can call the cops but that is all. They do piss on the 4th amendment every second of the day, however.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

CBP has always been courteous and professional with me. However they should not be allowed to do this.

Agreed in principle, but under what doctrine? Indeed, even with this ruling that labels a phone as part of one's personal effects, I wouldn't deny CBP the right to inspect a tractor-trailer full of books at the border for contraband, and we do have laws against certain types of books. If you can figure out the difference between a terabyte hard drive and a tractor-trailer full of books, the EFF would like to hear from you :)

Re:What about...

[ThatsMyNick]

If they have the authority to detain you if you not divulge your password, for all practical purposes they can make you reveal your password. People that are motivated enough about their privacy and data, that they are willing to be detained is exceptionally rare.

By the same definition, all a court can do is hold you on contempt of court, if you refuse to divulge your password, you dont have to give the court your password too. Admittedly the court can hold you much longer than ICE and CBP, but it is just becomes a degree of pressure. They both are effective enough for pretty much everyone.

Re:What about...

[Totenglocke]

The countless people who've been detained by the TSA would beg to differ. They might not LEGALLY be able to detain you, but the TSA doesn't give a rats ass about the law.

When *can* the police search you?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said cellphones are not materially different from wallets, purses and address books. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed.

As someone who has never been searched by the police I honestly didn't know they could do this. Under what circumstance can they search those things? Is it only upon arrest? How are wallets, address books, and purses not "papers, and effects" as described in the 4th amendment?

Posting AC since I moderated.

Not interested in crime

[jbolden]

The NSA isn't trying to convict in a court of law. What's admissible matters less to them.

Re:Not interested in crime

[TheCarp]

True, but only half the story. More true is to say that surveillance activities are already beyond the review of courts by the loophole known as parallel construction.

Quite simply it doesn't matter to them, because they will never even admit that is where it came from, they will simply use what they now know to set up a fiction that can be supplied to the court. Kind of like a manufactured alibi except in reverse.

Re:Not interested in crime

[jbolden]

Agreed it wouldn't matter. Though it is worth noting that both the NSA and DEA agree that almost all parallel construction is regarding the DEA not the NSA.

Re:Not interested in crime

[TheCarp]

As far as has been revealed to us anyway. The thing about parallel construction is that, unless they actually admit to it or talk about it, we really can't know if it is happening. We KNOW the DEA does it, we don't know if anyone else does; however we should expect that they take cues from eachother in how to operate.

In fact, for all we know, this technique was taught to the DEA by the NSA. In fact, its really nothing more than classic counterintelligence, which, would tend to be their bag.

Re:Not interested in crime

[jbolden]

True but the NSA doesn't care trying people in court. I think that overwhelms everything else they just aren't involved in criminal prosecutions much.

Re:Not interested in crime

[TheCarp]

That is, as far as we know, a valid point. Though it assumes we know what people in the NSA care about and how they cooperate. Also the DEA is hardly alone, if you read the article on the US Marshall Service and sting rays, they didn't use the words "Parallel Construction" but, calling a Sting ray device a "confidential informant" really is basically the same thing.

Re:Not interested in crime

[the eric conspiracy]

I don't really think a trial judge would consider this a 'loophole'.

More like a crime.

I think this parallel construction thing is going to blow up big time.

Re:Not interested in crime

[TheCarp]

I seriously hope you are right because it really deserves to; as such a basic violation against the very point of the courts. Courts do not exist to punish the guilty, they exist to protect the public from the government. They exist exactly for the purpose of preventing exactly what they are hiding!

As long as Paralell construction doesn't blow up, we don't even HAVE a court system worth calling one.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get too excited. It was a good call, but probably indicates that each member of SCOTUS knows how much incriminating information he/she has on his/her own device.

Re:FP

[Ghostworks]

It is common sense obvious. It is not common law obvious. Previous rulings on cell phones extended the findings for pagers, and the finding for pagers was that they were a container of information, like an address book, which can be searched like any other container during a stop or arrest.

There was obviously strain between previous rulings and reality, but that doesn't mean with any certainty that it was going to be corrected today by the Supreme Court. The court could have even further extended the previous cell phone findings, or even delivered a weaker test for whether the "container" can be searched. That makes this a rare, decisive, and unanimous(!) ruling from the court.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut up. I have *EVERYTHING* to hide from the government. Do you want to know why? Fuck you, that's why. I don't need a valid reason to keep my papers and other articles secret.

Re:FP

[funwithBSD]

However, in this case, the Supreme Court was 8-1, and the opinion amounted to "WTF is wrong with you? Of course you need a warrant, asshat!"

2d4 + flip a coin

[Overzeetop]

It's pretty obvious the method for deciding cases at this point.

Re:2d4 + flip a coin

[Anonymous Coward]

I just rolled 1 + 2 + heads.

I'm not sure what that means.

Re:FP

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What about the Cloud? The great workaround to constitution in the digital age?

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought unanimous meant 9-0. My mistake.

Makes you wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

....what are the justices trying to hide?

"Privacy comes at a cost"

[neo-mkrey]

You're God damned right it does!

They left a hole

[thaylin]

One big enough to drive a semi through: If they are truly faced with with a possible remote wipe situation they can still use exigent circumstances to search the phone.

Re:They left a hole

[gstoddart]

And, of course, it's always possible for a remote wipe, so you'd better search them all just in case.

Problem solved. Law, what law?

Re:They left a hole

[thaylin]

Well it does say that the circumstances suggest it is going to happen, so it at least means that reasoning has to be explained, so ideally what you said should not happen.

Re:They left a hole

[jratcliffe]

You really oughta read the TFD (The F'ing Decision). This issue was specifically mentioned, and there is no loophole:

"In any event, as to remote wiping, law enforcement is not without specific means to address the threat. Remote wiping can be fully prevented by disconnecting a phone from the network. There are at least two simple ways to do this: First, law enforcement officers can turn the phone off or remove its battery. Second, if they are concerned about encryption or other potential problems, they can leave a phone powered on and place it in an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves. See Ayers 30–31.Such devices are commonly called “Faraday bags,” after the English scientist Michael Faraday. They are essentially sandwich bags made of aluminum foil: cheap, lightweight, and easy to use. See Brief for Criminal Law Professors as Amici Curiae 9. They may not be a complete answer to the problem, see Ayers 32, but at least for now they provide a reasonable response."

Re:They left a hole

[thaylin]

Maybe you should read the entirety and not just stop when you find what you want.... What you posted is on page 14 of the decision, on page 15, 1 whole page later they write:

If “the police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation,”—for example, circumstances suggesting that a defendant’s phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt—they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately.

Re:They left a hole

[jratcliffe]

Wait, so you're claiming that reference constitutes a loophole? Any trial judge, reading this opinion, is going to very clearly understand how narrow that exception actually is. The state would need to show that, given that the Court has specifically cited the multiple ways that the remote wipe could be blocked, _none_ of those could be used. So, I suppose, if you had a phone without a removable battery, that couldn't be switched off (but could still somehow be searched), and the police had good reason not to be in possession of a Faraday bag, and had a reasonable belief that the phone was going to be remote wiped before they could get a Faraday bag, then they could search the phone. In practice, it's hard to see a scenario where the phone _could_ be searched, but _couldn't_ be switched off or disconnected from the network. I've never heard of a phone that locks up the ability to turn it off, but not the ability to search the phone.

Re:They left a hole

[thaylin]

First off, yes it is a loophole. Partly because you dont realize that remote wiping software does not have to have a present connection to work...If you remove the battery or put it in a Faraday cage it will only be protected until the battery is put back in, or is removed from the cage. Once it reestablishes the connection a remote wipe will then be kicked in. The only real option would be to disable the network, which is not easy to find in all cases.

Secondly that part of the ruling did not state that they would first have to attempt to remove the battery, or put it in the cage, just that they had to believe that they were confronted with that situation.

Re:They left a hole

[the eric conspiracy]

Once you put it in a Faraday cage the exigent circumstance cannot possibly apply any more and you are thereby obligated to get a warrant.

Really it's going to be hard to justify exigent circumstances based on the possibility of a remote wipe.

Re:They left a hole

[John.Banister]

The imaginary wiping wouldn't necessarily have to be remote. You could have a local program that keeps sensitive information in volatile memory and wipes if it isn't periodically told not to. They'd never be able to ascertain the presence of such software unless they searched for it. Battery removal would cause a wipe, and a Faraday bag wouldn't prevent one.

Re:They left a hole

[Neil Boekend]

A well setup lab would allow for the technician to work on a phone inside a faraday cage.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Pollux]

That is the exact argument that justifies a police state. Do you want a society where you can be searched at any time by the police to see if you're guilty of a crime, even when they do not have reasonable suspicion of you committing a crime? You, your parents, your friends, and everyone you know will always be treated as though you're guilty of something, and the police's job is just finding out what that something is.

BREAKING NEWS!

[Totenglocke]

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant. When asked for comment, police chief John Smith told this reporter "I don't give a fuck about your Supreme Court or your Constitution. If we want to search your fucking phone, you bet your ass we'll do it - and if you try to stop us, we'll shoot you. Kneel, peasants."

Re:BREAKING NEWS!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just precious.

Re:BREAKING NEWS!

[tquasar]

Tee Party much?

Re: FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever it is, I for one find this to be a refreshing change.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

This ruling was 9-0. I guess for funwithBSD unanimous is 8-1 and inunanimous is 9-0 (sort of like infamous is more than famous).

I'll just *whoosh* that now for you younger folks.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, stop being such a retard. It's not all about you, asshole.

I may have nothing to hide, but the candidate I support may have something to hide, and I don't want him getting jacked up by the po-po. Or my lawyer may have something to hide, and I don't want HIM getting jacked up either.

Required Police App?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the mandatory police app (or at least something that everyone will need) be forced upon everyone's phone with permission settings that say the writer of the app gets full access?

US and Canada but not UK EU

[WillAffleckUW]

In various rulings, the net result is the cops (FBI, NSA, SEC, State, County, Local) may not search your phone without a specific individual warrant.

But the NSA is permitted to back collect the information from anyone you ever played a game with on Facebook, including their own avatars they created to "live" overseas to get around this data collection restriction. They also have ones inside WoW and other games like WildFire.

Then they claim the information is "externally collected" and use it anyway.

The UK EU Australia govts do the same thing to their citizens using our data collecting (illegal under data treaties) on them.

Any questions?

Re:US and Canada but not UK EU

[WillAffleckUW]

I love you too. But a few hundred women could easily disprove your assertion. I won't bother, because I know you're closeted.

They all own cell phones or their kids do.

[bussdriver]

This shockingly sane unanimous ruling must be a result of their experience with smart phones. Some might not mind trashing the constitution or nation but when that could involve THEMSELVES... that is another matter.

stingray - groundwork for criminalizing use of

[EngineeringStudent]

So the large majority of content on my phone is illegal to search without a warrant
And it gets there from the internet, and goes to secure places on the internet through radio waves

At what point does the use of a stingray without a warrant violate civil rights here?

Re:stingray - groundwork for criminalizing use of

[david_thornley]

I don't think stingrays have made it to the Supreme Court. However, a stingray works by taking advantage of the phone's attempt to keep connected to a cell tower. It can't search the data on your phone.

This has been the law in NY State for year

[Nukenbar]

And I'd imagine a few others based on state constitutional protections, but now it is a federal rule. Seems to be the right decision, but it will be interesting to see if some states put up systems to fast track search warrants now to speed up the process, thereby lowering the amount of judicial review.

Re:FP

[HornWumpus]

Are you kidding me? They are supreme court justices.

Incriminating information isn't even written down. Bribes paid in gold ingots.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also be mindful of the fact that without the procedures and oversight - minimal as they may be - of at least getting a warrant, if you have nothing to hide* you may still end up with things "discovered" by a corrupt, jealous, or simply irritated official. What's that brick of cocaine doing in your trunk perp? First you've heard of it? Uh huh. A likely story. Tell it to the judge, meathead!

*You should always freely openly broadcast your credit card numbers, PINs, SIN, favorite sexual positions and what quiet little alleys your children use when walking home from school because the terrorists didn't win otherwise.

Re:FP

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Lots of things seem pretty obvious and the SCOTUS fucks that up all the time.

Swedish Chef says:

[Anonymous Coward]

Bork Bork Bork de Bork!

Re:FP

[kwbauer]

Well, maybe if the liberals weren't clamoring for them to ignore the parts they don't like and would stop trying to convince everyone that the Constitution only applies to things that existed at the time of its writing, then they could make some headway in this area.

Re:FP

[kwbauer]

Well, the cloud, computers cell phones, etc. did not exist back the in the 1700s so the Constitution does not apply to them so obviously SCOTUS screwed the pooch big time on this. Don't believe me, just ask your friendly neighborhood liberal about how the Constitution only covers muskets and not modern firearms.

All freedoms have a price...

[Karmashock]

You pay in blood, worry, and sweat... but its worth it because in the end you're not a slave... and submitting to all the alternatives just leads to slavery.

Re:FP

[AvitarX]

Not really,

The work around was the national security letters.

Re:FP

[funwithBSD]

No, it is just the funny way the Supreme Court works.

They ruled 9-0

But there was a 8-1 split on the reason why.
"Actually, it wasn’t much of a case: 8-1, with Alito concurring in part and concurring in the judgment overall. "