In Sweeping Ruling, Supreme Court Shields Privacy of Cellphones

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In a major statement on privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday 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 from routine inspection.The court heard arguments in April in two cases on the issue, but issued a single decision.

The first case, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. The police found loaded guns in his car and, on inspecting Mr. Riley’s smartphone, entries they associated with a street gang. A more comprehensive search of the phone led to information that linked Mr. Riley to a shooting. He was later convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. A California appeals court said neither search had required a warrant.

The second case, United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212, involved a search of the call log of the flip phone of Brima Wurie, who was arrested in 2007 in Boston and charged with gun and drug crimes. The federal appeals court in Boston last year threw out the evidence found on Mr. Wurie’s phone.

News organizations, including The New York Times, filed a brief supporting Mr. Riley and Mr. Wurie in which they argued that cellphone searches can compromise news gathering. The courts have long allowed warrantless searches in connection with arrests, saying they are justified by the need to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said the old rule should apply to the new devices.

Others say there must be a different standard because of the sheer amount of data on and available through cellphones. “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person,” Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote for a divided three-judge panel in Mr. Wurie’s case, quoting the words of the Fourth Amendment.

More here at the New York Times.

Comments

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the cable rent doesn't apply here, except for the few shows that are broadcast.

Cable rents are a whole 'nother can of shitty whoopass ready to descend.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Comcast is trying to buy Time-Warner which I guess means I should have kept my old Comcast box... either way, basic internet and channels I can't get with an antenna end up costing me $100 a month. Redonkulous.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

TV simply isn't worth that much cash. I'd pull the plug completely if The Wife™ didn't feel the need to veg on the garbage is spews . . . and pay the bill.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Internet pricing is complete b.s. as well. I'm always hearing about $19.95 a month plans that somehow they have metered down to speeds equivalent to an early 90's 14.4 modem speed.

I like my off-network channels like BBC America and MeTV (which has stuff like old Star Trek and Wonder Woman episodes).

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Internet pricing is complete b.s. as well. I'm always hearing about $19.95 a month plans that somehow they have metered down to speeds equivalent to an early 90's 14.4 modem speed.

I wished like hell Google Fiber (https://fiber.google.com/about/) would come to NYC. It has great reviews so far. And pretty reasonable for unbelievable speeds that you'd get.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I second the googlefiber coming to NYC.
Let's get a petition going! (jus kidding)