Supreme court rules police need a warrant to search cell phones

BlackBerry password lock
By John Callaham on 25 Jun 2014 11:22 am EDT
14
loading...
0
loading...
56
loading...

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant to search the content inside a cell phone of a person who has been arrested.

The decision is the result of two cases that were brought to the Supreme Court, Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie, both of which involved police who searched the content of cell phones of people who had been arrested but without asking for a warrant beforehand.

However, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nine members of the Supreme Court all agreed that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested."

The court did state there will be a few exceptions to this rule, such as cases that involve kidnappings and bomb threats that generate what the judges consider to be "exigent circumstances". However, today's decision finally does offer solid guidance on what the police can and cannot do when they arrest people with cell phones.

What do you think about this new court ruling and do you support the fact that police will now need to get a warrant before they can search inside the contents of a cell phone?

Source: U.S. Supreme Court

Reader comments

Supreme court rules police need a warrant to search cell phones

178 Comments

Yes it is, I have stated this time and again, your device is Private it's contents are Private, the same rules apply that requires law enforcement to enter your dwelling extends to your device, they MUST have a court issue a warrant to do so. The excuse of keeping us safer, whilst disregarding one Constitutional Right to Privacy cannot work. I hope that carriers take note. With Certain institutions in government, I am certain they will disregard this order but at least the Courts have weighed in.

Posted via CB10

Missouri has an amendment to the state constitution on the ballot for august. It will add to being secure in our homes all persons that we will also be secure in our electronic devices. So basically they can't search without a warrant if it passes. I'll be voting to pass it.

Posted via CB10

Great! The more the citizens get involved in the process the better things will get. Tell all your friends and family to do likewise.

Posted via CB10

I wonder if this also applies to border agents. Probably not.. those guys are basically untouchable by any law. My phones been seized and searched at the border with no fucks given about my rights. Since it was a "blackberry" apparently they thought I was a drug dealer.

Posted via CB10

Agree on that. They have their own interpretations and they seem to have a policy of looking down on everyone.

Z30 Vivo Brasil

They are hiding behind the Patriot Act, the Congress needs to have this repealed,it contravenes the Constitution and Basic Rules of Human Rights.

Posted via CB10

If citizens knew the details of the so called "Patriot Act" they would probably be very surprised. The PA was understandable given the tragedy of "911" but we should look at what was done in ?haste.

Very correct, it was and is a tool ,done in haste to circumvent the constitution. It needs urgent repeal. It was part of the Legacy that GWB left behind, where fear and fear mongering was used to control the masses. Including the i unlawful excuse to invade a sovereign state, repercussions that are still being felt there today. Hey but War is a Multi Billion Dollar Industry and "stimulates the economy ". Guess some party lobbyist needed to have a piece of the pie.

Posted via CB10

...but if you're a citizen of the country you're entering, they can't do that: I think they can only do it if you're not a citizen... but heck, I could be wrong.

Another fallacy International convention dictates that visitors to host countries be granted and afforded the same rights as the citizens of the host country. Read your passport it states this clearly. Its time people start understanding the laws.

Posted via CB10

As a note to our American friends, when you travel to other countries, rulings like this will not apply, particularly on entering a country. There may be similar rulings or laws that apply, but don't be surprised if there aren't. Remember, US law applies in the US, not in other countries.

Posted via CB10

By and large the "free world" has already adopted this. It's just catch up with the US. There are a few countries that are not compliant but as I have stated most of the "Free World " has already recognized and implemented the laws.

Posted via CB10

Ummm no Europe is actually moving in the opposite direction. In Germany for instance it is illegal for the police to even search the contents of an sd card without a warrant.

Well it's not really the warrant that's the issue. It's when people feel pressured to say yes. Once you consent they can search you without a warrant.

Posted via CB10

The police are very good at getting people to incriminate themselves. Say and do nothing. Lawyer up. Even if you've done nothing wrong. It's very hard to talk your way out of things if they want to question you bad enough or they really think you've done something

Posted via CB10

Booyah! You DO have the right to remain silent you know.

Swiped via CB10 with my T-Mobile USA (Only T-Mo rep still pushing  ) new  BlackBerry Z30 (STA100-5), son! The Thor's Hammer of phones! Member of "Club Z30 "..... the most exclusive club in mobile. Once you go BlackBerry, everything else is wack-berry! #longestsignatureeverthatishortenedabit

Wonder why gov took it that far though. Wasn't it obvious? Emails are like paper letter, contacts are a rolodex, calendar is like my paper agenda, documents are documents and the phone is like the office holding it together and the password like key to open the door.

This was completely obvious, why did they question it? There are very few things that are as private, as personal as a phone nowadays.

Z30 Vivo Brasil

Hahaha!

Swiped via CB10 with my T-Mobile USA (Only T-Mo rep still pushing  ) new  BlackBerry Z30 (STA100-5), son! The Thor's Hammer of phones! Member of "Club Z30 "..... the most exclusive club in mobile. Once you go BlackBerry, everything else is wack-berry! #longestsignatureeverthatishortenedabit

It makes sense. I wonder if that goes for a dash cam as well. Probably not. But I was just thinking the other day if perhaps my own cam might incriminate me. It'd be nice to have the video encrypted and password protected like my Z10!

Of course! I don't know why I wasn't thinking of the cam as a possession of mine within the vehicle... kind of like my GPS. I find it a little scary that my perception of my rights when it comes to digital and computerized items had already eroded like that. Thanks for making that clear again.

It makes sense. They are basically portable computers which already needed a warrant. Here is the big thing... don't break the law, no problems.

Posted via CB10

That type of statement I read a lot lately, "if you don't doing anything wrong.. .." however, there has been many examples of innocent people being put into bad situations as a result of privacy controls.

Posted via CB10

One of the problems is, sometimes you don't have to break any laws to come under scrutiny, be hassled, and have your other rights suppressed.

Yep, it's the right decision. I'm not sure what the situation is here in Canada but if a warrant is not required then we need this here as well.

Cheers. :)

I think in Canada they are a bit more lenient with the rule in that if the phone is unlocked (no passcode) a warrant is not required but I could be wrong or maybe that was just in the province of Ontario...

I like the laws here in Ontario a little better. If your phone is locked or password protected then they need a warrant otherwise it's fair game like any unlocked or open personal space. Only not so smart folks don't lock personal things. Trust no one.

Posted via CB10

That is not a good thing, it's your device the contents are Private, they should NOT be allowed to do so, the fair game rules with respect to unlocked devices is an infringement of one's basic human rights as it relates to privacy . They need to challenged with that law. One is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, this is NOT debatable, if there is suspicions that one is involved in illegal activity they need to go before a judge to get the permission. If not this will lead to abuse.

Posted via CB10

They are welcome to try cracking one's picture password :-). On second thought, maybe not. It probably isn't your day since you are in that position. And they just might get in by fluke.

Don Diego endorses the Zed.

Was about time. A phone is not just a toy anymore nowadays. It's way more than that. There is stuff on there that is really none of their business unless there IS a warrant.

Posted via CB10

Its unanimous for one reason. The right wing knobs that infect the USSC finally figure out that one big brother ruling, which they are so famous for, would probably result in a citizen mob bringing out the "tar and feathers" and then burning the court to the ground. They know when the jig is up.

Really, does the "Citizen United" ruling mean anything? Or how about all those wonderfully nebulous rulings on NSA information gathering. You do know that it is perfectly LEGAL in the US for the NSA to provide electronic information to local police departments to help with so called "case work". No warrant required. It was only under the Freedom of Information Act that wide spread abuse was revealed. But hey, maybe your right, the ACLU is a criminal organization. The constitution was shredded a decade ago by these people. Time to wake up.

Yes they do it using the "Patriot Act" as a guise. Don't you feel safer with Tom Dick and Harry going through your Private Stuff? I shudder at the thought personally. And no" I have nothing to hide" which some would say, isn't right either,doing otherwise is a kick in the teeth to Basic Human Rights.

Posted via CB10

I just love how these people throw out the phrase "Basic Human Rights" with Capital Letters and everything, but they can't even enumerate the Right they are attempting to bolster. Instead of throwing out catch phrases that don't mean anything, why don't you actually be specific, bolster your argument with an actual fact or two, and prove you have an actual clue about what you are talking about. Specifically I would really like to know what you mean by "Basic Human Rights" because no where in any of my education did they ever use that phrase. I've heard of GOD given rights, those are in the Bible, I've heard of the Bill of Rights, those are amended to the Constitution, but nowhere have I ever heard of "Basic Human Rights". Maybe you could be so kind as to point out where we can all read about those?

Read the following INTERNATIONAL Convention on human rights there are 30 of them, prove my case? Educate yourself, Please Moderator please excuse the lengthy list.
1. We are all free and equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.
2. Don’t discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.
3. The right to life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.
4. No slavery – past and present. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.
5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.
6. We all have the same right to use the law. I am a person just like you!
7. We are all protected by the law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.
8. Fair treatment by fair courts. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly.
9. No unfair detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without a good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.
10. The right to trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do.
11. Innocent until proven guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.
12. The right to privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters or bother us or our family without a good reason.
13. Freedom to move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish.
14. The right to asylum. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.
15. The right to a nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.
16. Marriage and family. Every grown-up has the right to marry and have a family if they want to. Men and women have the same rights when they are married, and when they are separated.
17. Your own things. Everyone has the right to own things or share them. Nobody should take our things from us without a good reason.
18. Freedom of thought. We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.
19. Free to say what you want. We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people.
20. Meet where you like. We all have the right to meet our friends and to work together in peace to defend our rights. Nobody can make us join a group if we don’t want to.
21. The right to democracy. We all have the right to take part in the government of our country. Every grown-up should be allowed to choose their own leaders.
22. The right to social security. We all have the right to affordable housing, medicine, education, and child care, enough money to live on and medical help if we are ill or old.
23. Workers’ rights. Every grown-up has the right to do a job, to a fair wage for their work, and to join a trade union.
24. The right to play. We all have the right to rest from work and to relax.
25. A bed and some food. We all have the right to a good life. Mothers and children, people who are old, unemployed or disabled, and all people have the right to be cared for.
26. The right to education. Education is a right. Primary school should be free. We should learn about the United Nations and how to get on with others. Our parents can choose what we learn.
27. Culture and copyright. Copyright is a special law that protects one’s own artistic creations and writings; others cannot make copies without permission. We all have the right to our own way of life and to enjoy the good things that “art,” science and learning bring.
28. A free and fair world. There must be proper order so we can all enjoy rights and freedoms in our own country and all over the world.
29. Our responsibilities. We have a duty to other people, and we should protect their rights and freedoms.
30. Nobody can take away these rights and freedoms from us.

Posted via CB10

In the 1890s, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis articulated a concept of privacy that urged that it was the individual's "right to be left alone." Brandeis argued that privacy was the most cherished of freedoms in a democracy, and he was concerned that it should be reflected in the Constitution,
The expression of data protection in various declarations and laws varies only by degrees. All require that personal information must be:
1.obtained fairly and lawfully;
2. used only for the original specified purpose
3.adequate, relevant and not excessive to purpose;
4.accurate and up to date; and
destroyed after its purpose is completed
The Council of Europe's 1981 Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Automatic Processing of Personal Data and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Guidelines Governing the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Data Flows of Personal Data articulate specific rules covering the handling of electronic data. .

Posted via CB10

I'm am so sorry that you have such a poor understanding of the law in the United States. Let me see if you can at least follow the legal logic here:

1.) This was a United States Supreme Court decision
2.) It was based on two different cases brought in the United States court system
3.) International Law, as you quote, has ZERO, and I do mean ZERO, bearing on this case or decision
4.) United States laws always take precedence on any other law, treaty, or charter, whether the United States is a party or not
5.) The sole criteria that the Supreme Court used was it's interpretation of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights (and just so we are clear here, I totally agree with their decision)

Wonderful that you have a grasp of US Law and that you don't pay any credence as yo what international law dictates. When a US is abused internationally you should try to remember your own mantra. Don't complain violations of Human Rights.

Posted via CB10

You mean like when we released 4 illegal Mexicans, with weapons, per Mexico's request, and sent them home, but they hold a US Marine, for months, for simply entering the country by accident??? You are just proving my point, and btw, you must be a natural born citizen as you certainly couldn't ever pass the citizenship test like I had to with your lack of knowledge of US Government.

Oh and by the way your thinking is so skewed with respect to the Constitution and Law ,that you don't even know that the framers knew a great deal of international law. Article I § 8 cites among the powers of Congress "to define and punish.. offenses against the law of nations," Article II empowers the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to "make treaties." Article III extends the judicial power of federal courts "to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls [and] to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;" and Article VI § 2, , says "treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States" will form part of "the supreme law of the land... any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
All of these concepts -- offenses against the law of nations, declarations of war, authorized privateering on the high seas, and most particularly treaties made by the United States -- are at or near the core of what is called "international law." Their presence in the Constitution isn't an accident.In America's first major foreign-policy crisis, over neutrality in the war between France and Britain, President Washington warned that "whatsoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations," by fighting for either of the belligerents or selling them prohibited items, "will not receive the protection of the United States, against such punishment or forfeiture."That goes, by the way, for the many international human-rights treaties to which the United States is a party -- they too are a part of "the supreme law of the land."The far-right suggests that the U.S. Constitution stands in some way apart from international law, immune from its norms obligations. The notion is nonsensical. The very purpose of the Constitution was to constitute a country, a nation that could carry out its obligations and enforce its rights under international law. But I am straying from the topic at hand however they go hand in hand and goes to the heart of the matter YES violation of Human rights by NOT obtaining a warrant. In contravention of the Constitution.

Posted via CB10

There is a constitution in the US? This sort of thing should be communicated when it happens.

Z30 Vivo Brasil

I here you. It's a mere shadow of what it once was. Without getting into all the particulars of the many argument presented here......this is why I choose Blackberry, cuz it's the most secure...for now.

Perhaps instead of spewing verbal attacks, your time could be better spent educating yourself on the importance of listening to both sides. You may be enlightened.

Posted via CB10

I didn't attack anyone. I even called myself a name! I do listen to both sides, and I happen to agree with the originalist view of the constitution.

Ok, my bad. I didn't start out wanting an argument anyway. Just saying it was a good ruling....in my opinion. It's all good ;)

"Right Wing Knobs". Really ? I see so much identification of "Right Wingers and "Conservatives". I am still looking for identification of "Left Wingers " and "Liberals". Much harder to find that.

In any case, this is a decision I welcome.

curious indeed, but I'm not on Crackberry to debate political issues. It loses the focus of our beloved OS and devices. I'm on twitter for the political stuff.

I don't care if they have a warrant or not ten tries is all they get.. then wipe...forget.. although I don't have anything to hide on my phone. I just don't like snoopy people

Via My z10 and CB10

This is good. Like someone commented above, they can still ask for consent to search. Never give away your rights even if you're sure you're innocent.

Z30 / STA100-5 / 10.2.1.3175 / T-Mobile USA

So this applies for traffic stops also?

The article says they need a warrant to search a phone if arrested. Doesn't say they need a warrant during a traffic stop without arrest. Some states are saying probable cause allows them to search, does this override that argument?

Posted via CB10

The intention of the ruling is that law enforcement can not search your phone without a warrant. There are a few exceptions, but it applies equally to those under arrest and those being detained.

I'm not living in the US, but I think they also need a warrant to search your car. That said, they probably know everything on your phone anyways through the NSA ;)

Posted via CB10

traffic stop in NY is loosely interpreted as an arrest (at least when applying for a pistol gun license).

Posted via CB10

US is actually behind the compared to the countries that actually respect privacy.

Frosty White Q10/10.2.1.3175 CB10'n

Not completely accurate, as someone pointed out they use "fair game " policy with respect to unlocked devices, we saw that in action during the Mayors Buddy's Trial, whereby they got evidence from an unlocked device without a warrant. They had to obtain one when another device was locked and they sent it to be analyzed.

Posted via CB10

It's the right decision. Today's cell phones are supercomputers that fit in your pocket and happen to make phone calls.

Posted via CB10

All my personal information is stored on the device and is set to lock after 1 min. The police won't be able to get into my phone. The SD card has no illegal information on it.. that typa shhhhiit is stored on the device encrypted and password protected. Good luck officer

Posted via CB10

LOL that's a good point.

I guess we can tell them sure I'll give you 10 chances to guess my password.

If you guess wrong then neither of us will have info

Yes it's a BlackBerry. If you have something bad to say... speak to Easton!

I think it will not matter that much. If they want data in transit, they can go to their backdoor to Verizon's datacenter and pull your texts calls and who knows what else. Data at rest(files on your phone) was always more secure because you can just store everything on SD card and encrypt it.
However if the carrier backdoors (see NSA) can pull data at rest as well, this ruling will have 0 impact.
If I am a police officer and want to get your data: I can either ask for your consent (which I won't get), or go get warrant (which I will probably not get), or go to the carrier backdoor and pull all the information without anyone's permission.
Which option will I choose?!? Hmm that's a tough one

Posted via CB10

It's bad enough having no privacy when it comes to phone calls, texts, and emails, but the whole pulling data at rest thing is almost enough for me to say to heck with it and go back to pen and paper. A modicum of privacy is a basic need.

The police always use these things to their own benefit. In the UK I can remember when anti terrorism laws were brought in to combat the IRA with powers of stop and search of vehicles, there were concerns at the time that the police would abuse it to search vehicles for no reason which they said they wouldn't. Today it's common practice to get your vehicle searched for no apparent reason other than being in an area where there's crime.
Makes me laugh though when people complain about the likes of the NSA accessing data from their phones but willingly give it up to Facebook and Google.

Posted via CB10

I don't think some folks fully understand the wealth of data they give to entities like Google and Facebook, myself included. And if I don't FULLY understand, then there is no way my folks or their friends do... which is why it's no big deal to them.

Other people do understand, yet do it anyway and enjoy those services they get in return. I don't understand that point of view really... maybe they are just a lot more optimistic about the nature of humans while I tend to view us more as treacherous, violent, and ignorant apes. Despite this difference though, I don't laugh at the Google and Facebook users if they complain about the NSA because there's still a difference between choosing to say, have sex with someone versus getting raped.

" I tend to view us more as treacherous, violent, and ignorant apes."

LOL! That would describe a lot of people these days!

This isn't to say that I don't know there is a lighter side to our nature, and lots of good and reasonable people too, but you know what I mean, lol.

So if Facebook tell you that they are going to rape you, does that make it consensual sex?
Maybe the NSA should just issue a long winded user agreement that no one can be bothered to read or understand and it's all good.

Posted via CB10

This is the way it should be.

I'm all for public safety but not at the expense of privacy. I believe police already know who they want to track and if they exercise a bit more planning and forethought to what they are doing, it would not be hard for them to acquire a warrant in a timely manner.

Yes it's a BlackBerry. If you have something bad to say... speak to Easton!

Good job here. It's about time that the 4th amendment actually means something.

Our phones are so much more than just us having call logs, and texts..it's email, pictures, so on and so forth. Technology is outpacing legislature at this point. It's good to see that it's catching up a bit.

I agree!!! Why was this a hard decision and why did it take sooooo long!!! USA is home of the cowards, stupid and unfree. What is county coming to?

So how does that apply to Customs Border Protection when entering the USA? They are considered peace officers.

Posted via CB10

Now those pigs will never see pics of my Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Muahahahaha

Waiting on the Z50 with 32gb of internal memory

Very happy with this decision. The more formal and recorded the process, the less potential for widespread abuse exists.

That make sense. No Brainer.

It's disturbing it made it all the way to supreme Court. Shows its a problem on large scale. Desperation of some group,entity, Nation goal to surveillance the world and store all data of individuals.
This power left unchecked, is lethal!! What's being done to "terrorists" can also be done to anyone.

I'm holding onto few security available in more and more insecure world. Thats why i chose BlackBerry.

Looper Back Make Corleone Offer for TrackPad on BB10

How does that song go again, something..." The Police "

"Classic" better be called "Bold Q20" or "Bold 10" 

Has anyone heard of a password??? Use one and there is no issue, don't and it's the same thing as leaving a book open, anyone can read it

Posted via CB10

This decision just applies to the police, not members of the US Border Patrol. If you go from Canada to the US and get pulled into secondary, they will tell you leave your electronic devices is the car while you sit and wait in the queue for a few hours. The fact is they are going through your data, email, texts and anything else they can (laptops, tablets, etc.). It's a bit of a rude awakening when you return to your car. Foreigners do not have the same rights in the US.

I agree wholeheartedly with the decision; however, it's interesting to me that the online practices of most US citizens wouldn't lead you to believe anyone cared in the least about their privacy.

Thumb-flicked from my Z30 via CB10

Obvious decision... It's disgusting that it was even questioned to begin with. Your right to privacy obviously extends to your cell phone.

Meh, sure it looks great on paper..... but.... we all know what happens in the real world. They'll still do whatever they see fit. Much like all other Government and State Officials.... thee old "do as I say not as I do" mentality.

Posted Securely Via BlackBerry 10.

Doesn't go far enough. No warrantless searches, period.

No NSA, no back doors, no violation of citizen's rights, period.

Posted via CB10

That doesn't mean the corporations are not collecting data from your phone. The people you call, the apps you use, the websites you visit. This is a good step but does not completely protect individuals. Need more to protect privacy... good step in right direction.

You can be smug and tell them they need a warrant, then they'll hold you for 24 hrs and make life really inconvenient for you. Fight the battles worth fighting.

Not consenting to a search is not necessarily "being smug". Some people would consider that a battle worth fighting. One can still be polite when trying to prevent further degradation of rights.

I once got stopped when I was still young, like 19 or 20, and got coerced into a search of the vehicle. This was all because some dumb lady apparently called the police because she thought I was rolling joints in the car at a gas station. The "joints" happened to be unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes that had fallen out of the pack and I was putting them back in. Anyway, I felt really violated and ever since that day make it known politely that I do not consent to searches.

And that is how it should be!! Cell phones are not just Phones anymore, we have out entire lives in these devices. We should be protected against police snooping, unless there is a valid reason for it.

Ojani Noa

I support the Supreme Court's decision in this matter...I absolutely support it.

Sent via BlackBerry Z10

Yup, keep a password on it. They are not letting you take your phone behind bars if you get arrested, so warrant or no warrant, they will go through it.

AmaZ30ed

In Canada, I thought a cell phone could be searched if it did not have a password set up, sine the idea was that if no password was set, there were no expectations of privacy, which I think is crazy. I f the door of your house is closed but not locked, does it mean the police can come on without a warrant?!

Sent using my  Z30

I guess this is good news for the drug dealers and pedophiles . Besides it's not that hard to write a warrant if you have the grounds....just say'n.

Brought to you by the letter Z and the number 10

That's the first thing that would come to mind with simple minded individuals, that's what they count on, trod over ones rights and say it's to benefit all.

Posted via CB10

Good! At least there's still some freedom, rights, constitution, etc. in the States.

One quick question, if anyone knows, can they search your phone if they have probable cause?

Posted via CB10

They cannot, they need a warrant. Period. Can they enter your home without one and obtain evidence without it? If they do any information or evidence acquired during a trial will be inadmissible. Akin to tainting of a crime scene.

Posted via CB10

Additionally there must be a extenuating circumstances in determining "probable cause" for example someone caught in the commissioning of a crime.

Posted via CB10

As it stands now, Border Services (Canadian or US) can search your phone and or other electronic devices without a warrant in order to approve or deny your entry application. Wonder if the Supreme Court will weigh in on that too.

Posted via CB10

That's the right decision, as law enforcement you should not be allowed to have dragnet rights.

Posted via Z10 10.2

"exigent circumstances" is the op words. Police will find away to seize the information from cell phones using this, so what if it's illegal it will take time until the court judge strikes it's evidence out, by then the police will have found something on the device that leads to other charges but that will likely make up a story where they their evidence. :)

If you have a good attorney any evidence obtained through that process will be deemed inadmissible. Though as you pointed out they will try that.

Posted via CB10

That is probably the best decision to come from the SCOTUS in at least10 years.

Pity it comes along with so many horrible decisions these days.

Like the US police is going to listen to this decision.. they will keep on going to do whatever they want to;)

Posted via CB10

The contents are private only to what's directly on your cell phone. Emails, contacts, documents on the cloud, text messages etc, can be subpoenaed from the carriers and are subject to the privacy policies of the carrier and isp providers.

Posted via CB10

Good to see this decision being made now. Unfortunately, laws ruling on technology issues have to date been a bit behind the times. As technology and it's use advances so rapidly, the same can't be said for the laws that need to be in place governing it.

Posted via CB10

Phew...now I can return and obsessively watch "Debbie Does Dallas" once again!

Cartman says: Screw you guys I'm going home!

My advice, lock your phone. Set the auto lock to the minimum time, and always keep the phone on your person.

If they ask to see it? Sure *lock* here, knock yourself out.

Posted via CB10

That sure ant going to stop them from going thru your phone when your locked up in hand cuffs.... lol... The police are number 1 for violating human rights and they brake more laws then Criminals. At the end of the day the police are the biggest gang in the world and they are going to do what ever they want because they are the law!!!

Posted via CB10

This isn't that big of a deal. If they have probable cause (they always find a way) they can get a warrant in no time...all this ruling did was delay the process fir a bit, in which case they will lock you up until they get it... this will set fear on us "innocent suspects" and grant them permission anyway.

Posted via CB10

It sounds like you're not happy with it. If you were a police officer you would do nothing different when dealing with a suspected criminal

Posted via CB10

No, all i'm saying is that it isn't the great news everyone is making it out to be. As if the cops won't hall you in to jail anyway. For instance, here in California you get a huge fine for texting while driving.

Now if you get caught you can argue that you were not unless they check your phone. You will still have to pay the fine until said warrant can prove otherwise which could take days or weeks and you could incur further legal charges on top of that so you end up waving the right for a search warrant anyway just so you won't have to deal with all of that.

Posted via CB10

Well, at least we have some justice. Cell phones are a personal property. Without a warrant they shouldn't be searching it.

In reality cops do what they want and judges may help cover up civil rights violations regardless.

Posted via CB10

Wow! Interesting. This is great. We need to fight back and speak out. This is just step forward in the right direction.

Posted via CB10

The law will do as they please , I still remember when I was 18 crusing down the high way in my new 2008 caddy cts, tinted windows 22inch low profile tires. I know sounds like a drug dealers car but I'm far from a drug dealer. non the less got pulled over for illegal tint (yet it was legal and the cop used a tint meter on it and knew it was legal) then cop claimed to smell "weed" at this point I'm laughing at him, he brings out his dog who "alerted" him which I didn't see him do anything to "alert" besides walk around the car and he searched the car found absolutely nothing in car, guys a clown. moral of the story is cops think everyone is a criminal, screw them.

Posted via CB10

This shouldn't even have a need to of been voted on. Your cell phone is personal and just like every personal item that contains things inside, should have a warrant to see the contents, period. We'll done.

Posted via CB10