"Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age"

Chesten_Hesten

Greatness isn't Stoked by Compliments.
@Gold
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
24,843
Reaction score
50,299
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-takes-privacy-digital-age-115436065--finance.html


Two Supreme Court cases about police searches of cellphones without warrants present vastly different views of the ubiquitous device.


Is it a critical tool for a criminal or is it an American's virtual home?


How will this play out?

One side:
What's more, said Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, "Cellphones are now critical tools in the commission of crimes."


The other:
"Cellphones and other portable electronic devices are, in effect, our new homes," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that urged the court to apply the same tough standards to cellphone searches that judges have historically applied to police intrusions into a home.


Who takes it?
 
There was a ruling in Canada, I think Ontario, that basically said, if your phone has a password, they need a warrant, if it doesn't have a password, they can look through it while investigating a crime.
 
I don't see why they can't be both a tool for the commission of a crime and a virtual home. I assume there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your cell phone and that you don't expect random people to simply flip through it's contents without your consent.

So I would think that a warrant is necessary for anything past the home screen.
 
I don't see why they can't be both a tool for the commission of a crime and a virtual home. I assume there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your cell phone and that you don't expect random people to simply flip through it's contents without your consent.

So I would think that a warrant is necessary for anything past the home screen.

I agree with this but I’m not sure if it will go this way maybe because of United States v. Rodriguez and the address book.

Found it.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/995/776/66882/
 
Last edited:
I don't see why they can't be both a tool for the commission of a crime and a virtual home. I assume there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your cell phone and that you don't expect random people to simply flip through it's contents without your consent.

So I would think that a warrant is necessary for anything past the home screen.

Criminals use actual homes to plan and coordinate criminal activity, yes? Does this mean police can search your home without warrant?
 
Surprised this hasn't gotten more play. This is a potentially far-reaching case.
 
Criminals use actual homes to plan and coordinate criminal activity, yes? Does this mean police can search your home without warrant?

Re-read my post more carefully.
 
Re-read my post more carefully.

My question wasn't a criticism of you. I think we are on the same page here.

Using the fact that cell phones are used in criminal activities as justification for wire tapping (an anachronistic term if there ever was one) without a warrant is akin to conducting searches of a person's home, vehicle, or body because those things are also used in criminal activities.
 
My question wasn't a criticism of you. I think we are on the same page here.

Using the fact that cell phones are used in criminal activities as justification for wire tapping (an anachronistic term if there ever was one) without a warrant is akin to conducting searches of a person's home, vehicle, or body because those things are also used in criminal activities.

I didn't think this case was on tapping the cell but reading the contacts, outgoing/incoming calls and text messages.
 
Hence my comment on wire tapping being an anachronism.

Not that I support it how is this any different the taking someones address book and reading it if you find it in the pat down?

Per the case I linked.
 
Not that I support it how is this any different the taking someones address book and reading it if you find it in the pat down?

Per the case I linked.

Ah, my bad, I didn't look through the actual case closely enough.
 
As much as I hate to say it, I expect an interpretation/decision that errs on the side of less privacy.
 
I don't see why they can't be both a tool for the commission of a crime and a virtual home. I assume there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in your cell phone and that you don't expect random people to simply flip through it's contents without your consent.

So I would think that a warrant is necessary for anything past the home screen.

what if your asshole friend grabs your cellphone and start going through your sms messages, pictures, etc.? should he be charged with breaking & entering?
 
what if your asshole friend grabs your cellphone and start going through your sms messages, pictures, etc.? should he be charged with breaking & entering?

Breaking only applies if he forcefully accesses your phone (by breaking the code word for example). Technically I'd say yes.
 
My question wasn't a criticism of you. I think we are on the same page here.

Using the fact that cell phones are used in criminal activities as justification for wire tapping (an anachronistic term if there ever was one) without a warrant is akin to conducting searches of a person's home, vehicle, or body because those things are also used in criminal activities.

My mistake then.
 
what if your asshole friend grabs your cellphone and start going through your sms messages, pictures, etc.? should he be charged with breaking & entering?

lol
 
Not that I support it how is this any different the taking someones address book and reading it if you find it in the pat down?

Per the case I linked.

That is a good link and a good question. If they find it on your person and they suspect it's being used in connection with a crime then the address book would be a good parallel.

But if it's more like your computer then they would need a specific warrant to search it's contents. Currently, I believe that even when they have a warrant for a home search they still need a separate warrant for the computer unless they think evidence will be destroyed immediately.

I don't think a phone applies since they can confiscate the phone, along with your other personal property, during the arrest and prevent it from being damaged until they obtain the warrant to search it's contents.

Sort of how when they arrest you they can take your house keys but they still need a warrant to search the house itself.
 
That is a good link and a good question. If they find it on your person and they suspect it's being used in connection with a crime then the address book would be a good parallel.

But if it's more like your computer then they would need a specific warrant to search it's contents. Currently, I believe that even when they have a warrant for a home search they still need a separate warrant for the computer unless they think evidence will be destroyed immediately.

I don't think a phone applies since they can confiscate the phone, along with your other personal property, during the arrest and prevent it from being damaged until they obtain the warrant to search it's contents.

Sort of how when they arrest you they can take your house keys but they still need a warrant to search the house itself.

Yea I hope they can make this argument and the court goes with it but I
 
Back
Top