Except for whatever police would or could consider an "emergency" .... it's about time.

U.S. justices limit police right to search cellphones (http://news.yahoo.com/u-justices-limit-police-search-cellphones-145408023.html)

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote.

The right to privacy, he said, "comes at a cost."

Ain't a thing on my cellphone that I "need" to hide...unless the DOJ is still searching for Jimmy Hoffa. :missing:

Really only a minor speed bump. Judges approve search warrants far more often than they don't.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote.

The right to privacy, he said, "comes at a cost."

Ain't a thing on my cellphone that I "need" to hide...unless the DOJ is still searching for Jimmy Hoffa. :missing:

Glenn Greenwald On Why Privacy Is Vital, Even If You 'Have Nothing To Hide' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/20/glenn-greenwald-privacy_n_5509704.html)

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote.

The right to privacy, he said, "comes at a cost."

Ain't a thing on my cellphone that I "need" to hide...unless the DOJ is still searching for Jimmy Hoffa. :missing:

Nice of Justice Roberts to point that out concidering that all of our rights and freedoms came at a cost, as does keeping those rights. Giving up those rights will cost far more. Makes me wonder what law enforcement did before cell phones.

... Makes me wonder what law enforcement did before cell phones.

Some relied on phone books for obtaining needed information.

Mainly because these left minimal bruising to their arrestees.


We are not totally passed this sort of behavior, but I do believe it is far less common than in the past.

Some relied on phone books for obtaining needed information.

Mainly because these left minimal bruising to their arrestees.


We are not totally passed this sort of behavior, but I do believe it is far less common than in the past.

Thanks to cameras being anywhere and everywhere.

Very few unanimous verdicts from the high court these days, interesting (and glad) this was one of them.

Some relied on phone books for obtaining needed information.

Mainly because these left minimal bruising to their arrestees.


We are not totally passed this sort of behavior, but I do believe it is far less common than in the past.

Reminds me of stories about the elevator rides downtown at the old jail. One friend of mine had the tale of an attitude adjustment with the elevator shut off between floors.

Very few unanimous verdicts from the high court these days, interesting (and glad) this was one of them.

There are a lot more than most folks know. Most of them tend not to be criminal law type cases. But in business cases 9-0 and 8-1 along with 7-2 cases are much more common. Check out the SCOTUS slip opinions.

There are a lot more than most folks know. Most of them tend not to be criminal law type cases. But in business cases 9-0 and 8-1 along with 7-2 cases are much more common. Check out the SCOTUS slip opinions.

Most of their cases, if not unanimous, are definitely lopsided in one direction or the other. Much has been made of politicalization but they usually focus on isolated cases and try to claim politics is ripping apart the court, overall. Not so.

But in highly charged cases, we usually see very close cases. That's all I meant. I know a lot of cases are unanimous. But for a case to be pushed by the government and law enforcement organizations all over the country to make it to the Supreme Court and it end up unanimous is - unusual.

Great news that the supreme court stood up for our rights. Nothing worse than someone being arrested and the police being to lazy to their job so they look through their phone. I also think it was great this was a unanimous decision.

Like MustangGT said, this is meaningless. Just means you'll sit in your car an hour or so while they get a warrant and then connect their little computer and suck all the info off your cell phone.

BBatesokc...Not at all "meaningless!" Do you want the Redcoats searching through your home...again?

This is a huge milestone in citizen's rights.

Like MustangGT said, this is meaningless. Just means you'll sit in your car an hour or so while they get a warrant and then connect their little computer and suck all the info off your cell phone.

I disagree. The notion that they can stop you and willy nilly look through the types of records most of us used to keep at home will dispense with what amounts to investigation and fishing expeditions on the side of the road at a low level stop. Imo, being able to look through cell phones without a warrant is like stopping a moving van for speeding and thinking that gives the police the right to riffle through the whole thing, including locked file cabinets. If they have enough for a warrant, they likely have enough to take you in, anyway.

But in highly charged cases, we usually see very close cases. That's all I meant. I know a lot of cases are unanimous. But for a case to be pushed by the government and law enforcement organizations all over the country to make it to the Supreme Court and it end up unanimous is - unusual.

The power of the bill of rights.

Like MustangGT said, this is meaningless. Just means you'll sit in your car an hour or so while they get a warrant and then connect their little computer and suck all the info off your cell phone.

Well, at least they would have to articulate some cause for the search. No, it's not exactly a tall hurdle, but what do you want?

I disagree. The notion that they can stop you and willy nilly look through the types of records most of us used to keep at home will dispense with what amounts to investigation and fishing expeditions on the side of the road at a low level stop. Imo, being able to look through cell phones without a warrant is like stopping a moving van for speeding and thinking that gives the police the right to riffle through the whole thing, including locked file cabinets. If they have enough for a warrant, they likely have enough to take you in, anyway.

Disagree all you want. But where are these measurable local complaints that police were willy nilly looking through random people's (non-alleged-criminals) cell phones?

I doubt many of you here realize how easy it is for police to obtain a warrant - especially depending on the judge.

The debate was sparked by criminal defense lawyers who argued their alleged drug dealer client's shouldn't have had their phones searched without a warrant and therefore any evidence gathered was irrelevant.

The low level on the side of the road search of a phone will continue (and actually does right now).

I get a DVD on a semi-regular basis that contains all the search warrant affidavits in Oklahoma County. Police here were already requesting warrants for side of the road cell phone searches in some cases.

They use the same boiler plate language i see over and over again..... "I've been a narcotics officer for [insert number here] years and in my professional experience cellular telephones are instrumental in the furtherance of the crime of drug trafficking, blah, blah, blah,......." BAM, warrant approved. A supervisor is then dispatched and he brings along his trusty Cellebrite Forensic Device and within minutes your password is bypassed and all your data is copied.

Exact same wording is used in prostitution cell phone warrants.

Will this ruling stop the occasional rouge cop from going through someone's phone for absolutely no reason? Maybe, maybe not.

All this really accomplished is giving criminal defense lawyers another possible defense to have evidence tossed. That's it.

If a cop stops you and looks in your phone but doesn't document its contents or try to use it against you in a criminal case, what are you going to do? Complain? Sue? Where's your proof?

My phone used to be routinely illegally gone through because officers knew I always turned on my phone's audio recorder. The only time I could prove it was when the recorder actually caught the officer saying, "well, lets turn that off."

You want to keep the individual cop from going through your phone? Simply use a password.

The only way he's getting past that is to involve more officers higher up the chain. The supervisor with the Cellebrite will need some level of probable cause. This ruling just means either your phone gets taken into custody so they can secure a warrant later. Or, you get delayed an hour or two while they get a warrant now.

I don't want it to be that hard to get a warrant. I'm all for law enforcement. But I personally think having to articulate a legitimate basis and then get a paper trail/record of just whose cell phones are being looked at is good for us. I hate the idea that some officer has the power to scroll through my phone when they can't even articulate why they need to be doing that. Guarantee, they aren't going to bother trying to get a warrant on iffy cases, most of which don't turn up anything, anyway.

I like having a paper trail as to whether the officer had probable cause. I mean, the officer functionally will pretty much always get the warrant. The accused will at some later time be able to challenge that probable cause as insufficient. Evidence still gets excluded from time to time.

I don't want it to be that hard to get a warrant. I'm all for law enforcement. But I personally think having to articulate a legitimate basis and then get a paper trail/record of just whose cell phones are being looked at is good for us. I hate the idea that some officer has the power to scroll through my phone when they can't even articulate why they need to be doing that. Guarantee, they aren't going to bother trying to get a warrant on iffy cases, most of which don't turn up anything, anyway.


That's fine, but you must have missed my point. Police officially already had to have probable cause to go through your phone. Now they simply have to put that probable cause in writing and get a warrant. Its just additional paperwork, as these requests are routinely 'rubber stamped.'

If some random officer wants to go through your phone without probable cause (no signs that was actually happening to any degree) the only thing that is going to stop him is a password.

I like having a paper trail as to whether the officer had probable cause. I mean, the officer functionally will pretty much always get the warrant. The accused will at some later time be able to challenge that probable cause as insufficient. Evidence still gets excluded from time to time.

I agree - the more accountability and people signing off the better. But in real criminal cases this isn't going to be much of a hiccup unless the officers are now stupid enough to not bother getting a warrant. Not that that won't happen. The gang units are notorious for not getting warrants or probable cause because nobody has sympathy for their 'victim' (gang members and drug traffickers).

I just get the idea the public thinks there was this big problem of police just walking up to people minding their own business at the mall and going through their phones. And that somehow this ruling solved that problem - that didn't exist in the first place.

That's fine, but you must have missed my point. Police officially already had to have probable cause to go through your phone. Now they simply have to put that probable cause in writing and get a warrant. Its just additional paperwork, as these requests are routinely 'rubber stamped.'

If some random officer wants to go through your phone without probable cause (no signs that was actually happening to any degree) the only thing that is going to stop him is a password.
The part about needing the warrant involves leaving a paper trail. That's enough to slow it down on iffy cases.

The part about needing the warrant involves leaving a paper trail. That's enough to slow it down on iffy cases.

Do you realize many cases involving the request for a warrant are 'iffy' at best to begin with. The entire need for the warrant was to try and get some evidence of a crime. A great many of the warrants I read are simply based on allegations, theories, suspicions. That's pretty 'iffy' in my book.

Do you realize many cases involving the request for a warrant are 'iffy' at best to begin with. The entire need for the warrant was to try and get some evidence of a crime. A great many of the warrants I read are simply based on allegations, theories, suspicions. That's pretty 'iffy' in my book.

At least subject to scrutiny on appeal. You are talking practicalities as they existed, yesterday. Seems to me, this ruling places a bright line between law enforcement and cell phone contents. I predict law enforcement and DA's will be a little more anal after this now that a unanimous court has taken such a firm stand. They were signaling law enforcement and I expect the message will come through loud and clear. It is one thing to play fast and loose with something you aren't sure is strongly protected. It is another thing following this kind of ruling.

Do you realize many cases involving the request for a warrant are 'iffy' at best to begin with. The entire need for the warrant was to try and get some evidence of a crime. A great many of the warrants I read are simply based on allegations, theories, suspicions. That's pretty 'iffy' in my book.

The law only requires that the suspicion is "reasonable." Now if you get the LEO on the stand and he can't come up with something that sounds reasonable (mind you, this is after the defendant was searched according to that suspicion and caught with incriminating evidence, which pretty much confirms any suspicion as true), then the exclusionary rule comes into play. That, however, is VERY rare. Defense attorneys who have succeeded in excluding critical evidence at a preliminary hearing or on a Motion to Limine are not in plentiful supply, and those who have sock said experiences away as war stories where they were pretty awesome, all things considered.

Brian is right about easy-to-get warrants. So many of the judges in Oklahoma County are former Assistants in the office of the DA. I don't like that at all and it's not where the big numbers of our judges should be coming from. This is all public business, Brian...when you said, "depending on the judge," could you name a few who (in your opinion) give in to law enforcement too easily and those who, you know, actually want some reasonable cause for suspicion?

Brian is right about easy-to-get warrants. So many of the judges in Oklahoma County are former Assistants in the office of the DA. I don't like that at all and it's not where the big numbers of our judges should be coming from. This is all public business, Brian...when you said, "depending on the judge," could you name a few who (in your opinion) give in to law enforcement too easily and those who, you know, actually want some reasonable cause for suspicion?

I can think of "one." But, I ain't gonna step into that pile of do-do...No Sir!

No questiion the cops are going to do that. Is this the be all to end all?,... nope. But its a step in the right direction to help protect the average citizen from prying law enforcement. Cops play on the chance that a person doesn't know their rights and are just going roll over for them. If you don't know your rights and unwhittingly give them up, the cop has no control over that and is going to take full advantage of it, so hell yeah, make them work for it.

If you're arrested, they impound your immediate possesions,... wallet, keys, cell phone, etc. By then it's game over anyway. No question they will get their warrant, even if they've already gone through your phone when you weren't looking.

Getting the warrant is no big deal. The LEO's will get the warrant and the shysters of the local defense bar are not educated enough to beat it the vast majority of the time.

Dig at my profession aside, it's actually not a bad thing that most police action isn't overturned.
Contemplate for a spell what one's daily life might be like if the conduct of police were so egregious the vast majority of their actions were ruled to be constitutional violations.