Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: SCOTUS unanimous decision ( RARE) on cell phone searches!

  1. #1
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    568

    SCOTUS unanimous decision ( RARE) on cell phone searches!

    The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information
    on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-132_8l9c.pdf
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    The first judge should blow his own head off for being stupid .. and the state lawyers who worked on appeals should also.

    A freaking 5 yr old would know the correct decision on this issue.

    Instead it took a waste of taxpayer dollars to get to the same conclusion a 5 yr old would.

    Kudos to our justice system ...

    Thanks for the post OP !

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Thanks for the post.

    I agree with McBeth it's a travesty it even got that far.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,395
    I'm tellin'...The Supremes have naughty pics on their cells. (the logical conclusion).

    To be serious, the 'may not generally...' thing is the chink in the ruling. And of course LE can always say 'oh, oops, my bad, nobody told me'.

    In fact what's the point if the phone can be seized (for what a tail light out?).
    Last edited by Maverick9; 06-25-2014 at 04:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    As Professor Gutzman says, it's a good decision yet still unconstitutional.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    665
    So how does this decision the average low level police officer's version of the NSA spying, otherwise known as StingRay?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...olice/3902809/

    See as how with most bundled and automatic backup software, the entire contents of a phone's memory will auto-backup to the Cloud at frequent intervals. Isn't warrantless mass-spying on the airwaves the same as raiding an entire phone's memory now?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    I'm tellin'...The Supremes have naughty pics on their cells. (the logical conclusion).

    .
    ROFL .... I have asked for several internet browser histories from several legislators ... what I get is a history after they clear it !

    Like these guys:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...g-porn-3760272
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 06-25-2014 at 07:09 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Modern up-to-date browsers include the option to keep no history, cookies, or cache.
    Correct, ones I get have the history set for 7 days of storage .. but only 1 or 2 days actually are there (they clear them out then provide them -- so easily spotted) ... want their full history? Ask for the dat files ... now this gets them freaked out completely ! Still waiting to get some dat files that agency lawyers promised me....

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,132
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    ROFL .... I have asked for several internet browser histories from several legislators ... what I get is a history after they clear it !

    Like these guys:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...g-porn-3760272
    FOI the "procedure" for clearing browser histories. They ought to have a formal policy.

    IIRC they also have a policy against personal use of government computers by government employees. FOI the procedure for tracking and enforcement of that policy.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 06-26-2014 at 10:22 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,132
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Modern up-to-date browsers include the option to keep no history, cookies, or cache.
    Sys Admin powns all history

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Sys Admin powns all history
    Even the user's PC saves it, whether want to or not ...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Modern up-to-date browsers include the option to keep no history, cookies, or cache.
    If you're using Windoze, you are naive as to the storage of 'history'. It's all in the cache or whatever Bill and Co use to spy on you. In fact, Microsloth has been caught a couple times downloading user data to 'protect' their software.

    All clearing 'history' does on a windows machine is protect it from your non-tecchy spouse (but not from your savvy ten year old).

    HTH

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,106
    The only thing that will change is that cops will hang onto the phone as evidence. I suspect that completed warrants will be printed up and ready for a signature. Your rights will be violated, nothing will change, and this ruling reiterates what we all know:

    Cop: "Yeah, yeah buddy, we'll let a judge sort it out, watch your head."
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The only thing that will change is that cops will hang onto the phone as evidence. I suspect that completed warrants will be printed up and ready for a signature. Your rights will be violated, nothing will change, and this ruling reiterates what we all know:

    Cop: "Yeah, yeah buddy, we'll let a judge sort it out, watch your head."
    Ready? They'll have them all pre-completed !

    Anyone who is betting on judges protecting your rights is sadly mistaken...

    Windoze ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,132
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The only thing that will change is that cops will hang onto the phone as evidence. I suspect that completed warrants will be printed up and ready for a signature. Your rights will be violated, nothing will change, and this ruling reiterates what we all know:

    Cop: "Yeah, yeah buddy, we'll let a judge sort it out, watch your head."
    Hmm, there needs to be a 'dead man app.'

    Enter code every 24 hours or all data is wiped. Might be possible for the app to turn the phone on and wipe the date, even if stored in a police evidence locker.

    That ought to be worth $1.99

  16. #16
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    So how does this decision the average low level police officer's version of the NSA spying, otherwise known as StingRay?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...olice/3902809/

    See as how with most bundled and automatic backup software, the entire contents of a phone's memory will auto-backup to the Cloud at frequent intervals. Isn't warrantless mass-spying on the airwaves the same as raiding an entire phone's memory now?
    You'd think so. The law does require a warrant to intercept such communications, after all.

    The police are basically asserting that such a thing isn't interception and therefore no warrant is required -- but if that were true, it would be legal for anyone to use one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Hmm, there needs to be a 'dead man app.'

    Enter code every 24 hours or all data is wiped. Might be possible for the app to turn the phone on and wipe the date, even if stored in a police evidence locker.
    Yeah, just don't oversleep or forget to enter the code.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    The OP mentioned in the title that a unanimous decision is rare for SCOTUS, the truth is they issue unanimous decisions about half the time at least the last 10 years or so that is they way it has been.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    16,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    The OP mentioned in the title that a unanimous decision is rare for SCOTUS, the truth is they issue unanimous decisions about half the time at least the last 10 years or so that is they way it has been.
    Maybe what is rare is when their decision is not on the side of the state.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Maybe what is rare is when their decision is not on the side of the state.
    Now you are on to something.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    The OP mentioned in the title that a unanimous decision is rare for SCOTUS, the truth is they issue unanimous decisions about half the time at least the last 10 years or so that is they way it has been.
    To clarify, Jeff, I was commenting on the composition of the current Court, which has only been composed since August 7, 2010 and first sat on the first Monday in October of that year. I apologize as I should have been more clear for those not in the legal profession.
    Last edited by rapgood; 06-27-2014 at 10:05 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  21. #21
    Regular Member XD40sc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    402
    And it was UNANIMOUS, all 9 justices (appointed by both dem and rep presidents) agreed that the cops have no right to go through your cell phone.

    Note: 9/0 decisions don't happen very often, and that is a very significant statement that cops have very clearly overstepped their boundaries.
    Last edited by XD40sc; 06-28-2014 at 06:29 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    The current court has ruled on 57 cases up to 6/22/2014 36 of them were unanimous decisions that is 63% way over half.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...erts/10900049/


    In the 2011-12 session the court had at 6/1/2012 ruled unanimously 52% of the time.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...ons-unanimous/

    Unamious decisions are not all that rare and seem to be getting more and more common since Stevens left the court.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Olympia
    Posts
    538
    Respectfully , what does this have to do with OC?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Respectfully , what does this have to do with OC?
    It is good info for those of us that OC, understanding the law on a lot of levels is a good thing
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,450
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovenox View Post
    Respectfully , what does this have to do with OC?
    It can serve as the foundation for attacking the gun-free zones.

    In very basic terms (the embelishments are necessary and need to be understood) SCOTUS is saying that it is the act(ion) and not the implement that is the proper focus of concern.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •