http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/29/today-at-scotus-do-cops-need-a-warrant-t

Yeah, so this is an incredibly huge deal. The wrong decision here could be a death knell for freedom and privacy especially as we move more and more towards cloud computing and storage.

4/30/2014 10:40:27 AM

And if there is a wrong decision, will we seen an "American Spring"?

4/30/2014 10:48:10 AM

Nah, probably just a shitload of battles over increasingly sophisticated phone locking and encryption which will be the inevitable response, whether people can be forced to reveal passwords, etc.

As long as there's another season of American Idol being broadcast there will be no revolution.

4/30/2014 10:59:12 AM

Pretty sure this case will go the wrong way, like previous cases on the rights of police to search without a warrant. SCOTUS has bastardized the constitution. I don't know how anyone could think it be constitutional for the police to search and seize anything without PC/a warrant, other than for their immediate safety (searching body for weapons/needles).

[Edited on April 30, 2014 at 11:09 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2014 11:08:40 AM

Quote :

"I don't know how anyone could think it be constitutional for the police to search and seize anything without PC/a warrant, other than for their immediate safety (searching body for weapons/needles)."

I agree.

I even question safety pat downs that turn up drugs, if the original reason for detaining someone has nothing to do with suspicion of intoxication.

4/30/2014 12:07:25 PM

I clicked on this thread expecting to see the ruling that your neighboring state(s) to the west don't get a free pass for fucking up your air.

Of course no conservative "news" outlet has a whisper about it. . .

4/30/2014 1:33:35 PM

Quote :

"Our rule has been that if you carry it on your person, you ought to know it is subject to seizure and examination"

The great, conservative defender of the constitution and the common man, Antonin Scalia


Of course, he's not the only one offering eye-rollers

Quote :

"The justices’ questions themselves revealed varying levels of familiarity with their own cellphones. In an exchange between Justice Stephen Breyer, now 75, and an attorney representing California about data encryption on phones, the attorney said that he didn’t know what type of phone Breyer had. “I don’t, either, because I can never get into it because of the password,” Breyer replied."

4/30/2014 2:57:19 PM

^well congress makes laws on subjects of which they know nothing, so why shouldn't the justices make interpretations on subjects of which they know nothing?

At least the government is consistent?

4/30/2014 3:18:39 PM

In th Aereo case they asked if it could rebroadcast HBO, and why was it okay to do that for free because they don't know what cable is.

4/30/2014 3:57:42 PM

ha.

that's ok; the FCC didn't know what the Internet was when they decided on regulations about a decade ago. Internet, whaaa??? Well, it's not a phone, so it must be a TV cable!

4/30/2014 4:04:31 PM

SCALIA GETS HIS FACTS WRONG IN EPA DISSENT
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCALIA_DISSENT_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Quote :

"Scalia went on to say the case "is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation." He cited as authority the high court's 2001 decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, in which the court said that such an analysis was not allowed under a section of the landmark anti-pollution law. The author was Scalia. The problem is that it was the trucking group, not the EPA, that wanted the agency to use a cost-benefit analysis."

cited a case that basically said the opposite of what he wanted it do. doh!

5/1/2014 8:03:49 AM

I imagine if you had a password on your phone that you wouldn't be required to divulge that to the police. Sure your phone may be wiped but that could be a small price to pay.

Not saying I agree with the law, just that there are some easy protections against it. Also, no need to slippery slope me because I get it and am just pointing out some aspects.

5/1/2014 8:46:19 AM

7-minute listen here

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/308068253/supreme-court-considers-where-lines-drawn-in-cell-phone-searches

5/1/2014 11:00:18 AM

Well they already have made the US an Oligarchy with Citizens United and McCutcheon vs. FEC so why not move us closer to a police state?

5/1/2014 11:12:27 AM

What currently happens if a person gets arrested with a phone? Do they charge you with something if you don't unlock it?

5/1/2014 12:47:16 PM

They use your lack of consent as probable cause.

5/1/2014 1:22:11 PM

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/

5/1/2014 11:01:01 PM

^if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to worry about.

5/1/2014 11:51:54 PM

My interpretation of this case is on whether cops can flip through your phone with only probable cause, but not whether you can be compelled for the password without a warrant?

5/1/2014 11:58:31 PM

Nice. "If you are legally detained elsewhere, no warrant is needed to search your home."


Cop: Sir, may we search your house?
Citizen: No, go get a warrant.
Cop: You're under arrest. Search his house, boys.

5/2/2014 2:38:52 PM

I had this thread open in a tab for quite some time. and I kept glancing at it and thinking "Oh shit, what's this hugely important thing I have to do?"

then I remember, "Oh yeah, it's just that SCROTUM thread"

I felt the need to share this, since I really have had this thread open for like an hour.

5/2/2014 8:25:23 PM

I would love to hear what kind of world/America Scalia would sculpt if allowed. Thomas is probably just as bad, but Scalia gets the face time and seems to love making his bloviated dissents.

5/2/2014 8:42:47 PM

It's almost as if you have zero idea of what Scalia writes when it comes to 4th Amendment issues.

5/3/2014 7:35:00 AM

I can't say as I do. I would not go as far as saying that he is a dumb man, I just find his ideology and thought process warped and would like to see what his endgame looks like for my own amusement.

5/3/2014 9:14:19 AM

warped really? And you base this upon what? disagreement?

5/3/2014 1:04:22 PM

Senior citizens determining the rule of the land concerning technological issues. What can go wrong?

[Edited on May 3, 2014 at 1:36 PM. Reason : muh grammar]

5/3/2014 1:36:21 PM

Supreme Court: Police can't search cellphone without a warrant — In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot search a person's cellphone without a warrant. "Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the opinion. less
Read more at http://www.wral.com/#pRq7ykr3Iz1myyyt.99

6/25/2014 10:34:10 AM

Warm fuzzies that we had a unanimous SCOTUS ruling in favor of civil liberties for once.

6/25/2014 10:55:47 AM

Aereo is illegal

6/25/2014 12:08:16 PM

distributing free material is illegal. great.

6/25/2014 12:09:26 PM

it sounds like where Aereo got in trouble was recording and holding the transmission, that kicked it into a "public performance"

(haven't read the decision yet, only a couple news reports)

6/25/2014 12:17:49 PM

^^distributing COPYRIGHTED material IS illegal though which is what the case was actually about.

6/25/2014 1:15:32 PM

I hate that aereo lost, but the ruling does make sense based on the current laws.

6/25/2014 1:56:21 PM

The aereo ruling is correct. the technology used to rebroadcast is completely irrelevant. Aereo had no right to rebroadcast it.

And in response to the dissent, unlike internet companies, aereo cant claim it is a dumb network in order to push copyright concerns onto their customers. Their entire business depends on the ability to rebroadcast copyrighted content and in fact they choose markets based on available broadcast content.

The cellphone ruling is great though because it also extends into remote data the phone connects to.

6/25/2014 3:07:25 PM

It's unfortunate, but unsurprising, that aero lost. Copyright laws are massively skewed against the public. Rather than update and fix the laws they've just gotten twisted in weird ways by the judiciary to fit new technology, often with odd and illogical reasoning and results.

Thank god they finally decided to stop hacking away at the 4th amendment for a little while at least.

6/25/2014 6:41:38 PM

^agreed. The legislative bodies in this country have really failed to keep our laws up to date with tech instead relying on judicial decisions that twist them up.

Thank god that they UNANIMOUSLY smacked down the bs warrantless cellphone searches, those in law enforcement that fought for that are spineless bitches only interested in the erosion of liberties in order to "keep us safe".

6/25/2014 8:45:53 PM

SCOTUS is crushing the government on all this 4th amendment stuff

6/25/2014 11:32:56 PM

Quote :

"I don't know how anyone could think it be constitutional for the police to search and seize anything without PC/a warrant, other than for their immediate safety (searching body for weapons/needles)"

Yep, it's infuriating that this was ever even argued in court, let alone that it made it all the way to SCOTUS.

Quote :

"As long as there's another season of American Idol being broadcast there will be no revolution."

Quote :

"Warm fuzzies that we had a unanimous SCOTUS ruling in favor of civil liberties for once."

Yeah, good for the win, and good that it sets such strong precedent by being unanimous. I mean, any remotely reasonable interpretation of the Constitution results in a response of "Duh, no shit."

...yet here we are.

6/26/2014 12:54:51 AM

Quote :

" those in law enforcement that fought for that are spineless bitches only interested in the erosion of liberties in order to "keep us safe"."

Agreed. By the way, our fearless leader's administration of course submitted a brief in favor of allowing warrantless searches of cell phones.

There was also this today, which was nice to see.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/26/supreme-court-strikes-down-obamas-uncons

[Edited on June 26, 2014 at 4:32 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

6/26/2014 4:06:45 PM