Court Says No Warrant Needed for Cellphone Search

Court Says No Warrant Needed for Cellphone Search

techland.time.com

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an order from a Houston federal judge who ruled that cellphone data is constitutionally protected from instrusion and can only be acquired with a search warrant. In overturning that ruling the appellate court ruled that cellphone data is a business record that belongs to the service provider and not the cell phone owner. The court said that such data collection does not meet the standard of the 4th Amendment which requires a search warrant.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com

Even tho a court order (but not a search warrant) is required for a cell phone search this ruling does an end around the 4th Amendment and its protections. By changing the rules as to ownership of the cell phone data the court is facilitating the wholesale collection of cellphone data randomly and remotely or even at checkpoints. This ruling is part of a growing invasion into individual privacy and helps set up the structure of a viable police state in America.

techland.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I used to believe the Judicial Branch was our insurance policy against a government gone wild...Something has changed in America...... or maybe it never was the place many fought and died for?

If you absolutely have to have a cell phone, you should be sending your service provider a letter stating that if they don't send you written confirmation that they will not hand over your data to any proclaimed authority unless they are shown a warrant, then you will be ending your customer relationship.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Why not try writing an addendum to the contract stating that they agree that the cell phone data (calls and location) belong to you and not them,,,,initial it and ask the rep to do the same? It is worth a try.

The judicial brand are career politicians like politicians they come from a long line of lawyers, like lawyers they are as dirty as their congress politicians counterpart and as easily bought by the right interest pursuing the end of Americans constitutional rights.

America no longer have any body in within our system of government that is working for the people.

Follow the money and you will find the truth.

This isn't surprising. The government already operated as if this was the case. Now they just have legal precedent to do so. And yet again the most depressing part of this story is the non-existence of a public outrage over this subversion of our 4th amendment right.

The 'Supremes' will weigh in on it soon enough.

Originally posted by ERagerz
The 'Supremes' will weigh in on it soon enough.

Yeah, that gives us a lot of hope....

Oh...neat. So your own data isn't yours anymore, it literally and legally belongs to someone else.

Sooooooo..... When you delete it all, you'll be committing a crime not only by tampering with what they'll call evidence but destruction of property, not yours. Oh.. Yeah... Dandy. I just love some of these decisions. The court can have a nice, fresh smell some days ...and then, others? The stench from the bench would make a billy goat puke and run for the hills.

Does this mean we shouldn't pay for any data overages since it's not our data?
I'd love to see someone try that!

reply to post by CosmicCitizen
This is more of that 3rd party loop hole again.....and courts playing musical chairs. Oh and 3rd parties having to show more allegiance to the government that its customers and thus being party to this corruption. Oh and the FCC claiming ownership and power regulate to anything that goes over the air.

well, this should make an interesting argument for the USSC.
if we don't own our 'data', then why should we pay for a 'data' plan ?
i bought it, i should own it.

does this mean we can be prosecuted for destroying the property of others if we delete 'data' ??
does this mean data shared between employees can be readily claimed by any 3rd party involved ??
does this mean "hacking" no longer exists since the 'data' accessed doesn't belong to the company/person being hacked ??
does this also mean that since the 'data' doesn't belong to us, that we cannot be prosecuted for such things as unlawful images ??

equally, does this mean that all of the providers WILL BE prosecuted for disseminating unlawful content ??
hmmmm, what does all of this mean on a grander scale ?

I thought corporations were people in the USA?

reply to post by Honor93

This just gave the child pornos a defense in that they dont own the images downloaded (if cell phone anyway). Getting back to the crux of the matter...the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their...persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches. Technology today has made a smart cell phone a substitute for carrying "papers", etc and is carried on one's "person" (even a substitute for carrying cash to facilitate payment with the right app) therefore I would like to believe that the appellate court will be overturned by the SCOTUS (unless the NSA can get some dirt on one or more justices and persuade them otherwise).

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

i was thinking more along the lines of teen 'sexting' but yes, that could be an interesting development indeed.

at this point it would be questionable that the USSC would even agree to hear such a case. they have such pressing matters these days, what do our 'rights' or the Constitution really matter ??

i would be interested in seeing a 'class action' come forth from all of the parents whose children are now 'felons' due to sharing pics of themselves ... how ridiculous.

as much as i wouldn't want those engaged in child porn to mount a reasonable defense, this decision sure gave them one, didn't it ?

Not that I agree with the decision but this is not about the data that is in your phone. It is about the data about the calls you make. That data does not come from your phone, it comes from your service provider.

Similar to the NSA situation however a bit different. In this case, instead of a capture of all available data, specific call data was targeted for a particular investigation.

I believe a defintion of "data" is required.

reply to post by CheckPointCharlie

From the linked article.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes had upheld a magistrate judge’s 2010 ruling that had denied a request by federal authorities in three separate criminal investigations to compel cellphone companies to provide — without a search warrant — 60 days of records for several phones.

“We understand the cell phone users may reasonably want their location information to remain private … But the recourse for these desires is in the market or the political process: in demanding that service providers do away with such records … or in lobbying elected representatives to enact statutory protections. The Fourth Amendment, safeguarded by the courts, protects only reasonable expectations of privacy,” the three-judge panel wrote in its 2-1 decision.

techland.time.com...

It should be noted that there was a court order allowing the collection of the data.

reply to post by Phage

that is some of the most ridiculous double-speak ever.
why should the consumers be forced to take EXTRA steps to protect their 'reasonably expected privacy' based on all telecommunicative activities to date ?

every contract includes a "Privacy Statement" and expresses a reasonable expectation of privacy BEFORE the contract is signed.
why change it now ??