Supreme Court affirms privacy rights of cellphone users in 'Big Brother' case

Supreme Court affirms privacy rights of cellphone users in 'Big Brother' case

That is refreshing in todays USA.
www.foxnews.com...

The Justice Department suffered a digital-age defeat Friday at the Supreme Court, which sided with the privacy rights of cellphone users in a dispute over law enforcement tracking their movements. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said law enforcement generally will need a warrant for such searches. Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote. At issue is whether the Constitution's Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant for the government to access a person's cellphone location history. It is the latest foray by the justices into how laws should be tailored to keep up with technological advances.

I am stunned this case had to go all the way to the SCOTUS for a ruling. A search warrant should be needed for cell phone information. I believe a cell phone would fall into the "effects" category listed in the fourth amendment.

constitution.findlaw.com...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does it seem it is so hard for law enforcement to understand this?
From the link:

The stakes were enormous, since this judicial precedent could be applied more broadly, including government access to Internet, bank, credit card and telephone records.

Are records not "papers" now? Why would anyone think these are available with no warrant????

“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information,” he wrote. “The fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”

I am glad for the outcome, but paused by the 5-4 split. We ALL are in need of our constitutional protections.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Excellent op, nothing much to add, other than total agreement.

a reply to: shooterbrody

My money is on the fact that this ruling will be routinely ignored.

originally posted by: loam
My money is on the fact that this ruling will be routinely ignored.

Then I feel sorry for the tax payers of whatever municipality that ignores them as it will be a hefty civil rights violation payout.

5-4, huh?

Why are justices not subjected to term limits again???

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

5-4, huh?

Why are justices not subjected to term limits again???

Interesting that the conservative Justices voted against this with the exception of Roberts.

Its about time some damn fine news!

Like they really couldnt figure out if that's privacy or not. In the wrong hands half the people out there could be blackmailed and all kinds of other potentially damaging or embarrassing scenarios; business trade secrets compromised; etc.

a reply to: shooterbrody


Although a step in the right direction, it still doesn't address the use of devices such as Stingray and others that they use to gather cell phone conversations.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I've got news for you. The government has many data agreements with private business that potentially violate federal law.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

5-4, huh?

Why are justices not subjected to term limits again???

Interesting that the conservative Justices voted against this with the exception of Roberts.

I know.

And I've always viewed Roberts as a sell out (especially since his tie breaking vote to uphold Obamacare, SPIT)

originally posted by: loam
I've got news for you. The government has many data agreements with private business that potentially violate federal law.

I'm sure they do, when potentially turns into definitely they owe the person something as well.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
I know.

And I've always viewed Roberts as a sell out (especially since his tie breaking vote to uphold Obamacare, SPIT)

Well, I'm glad he came to his senses on this one but it's troubling to see the 'small government' conservatives vote otherwise.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They have to prove it first.

ETA: Each...and...every...time.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: shooterbrody

My money is on the fact that this ruling will be routinely ignored.

Yeah, the ruling is meaningless unless violations are met with real jail time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

5-4, huh?

Why are justices not subjected to term limits again???

Interesting that the conservative Justices voted against this with the exception of Roberts.

From the link:

In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy warned “the court’s new and uncharted course will inhibit law enforcement and ‘keep defendants and judges guessing for years to come.’” “This case should be resolved by interpreting accepted property principles as the baseline for reasonable expectations of privacy,” he added. “Here the government did not search anything over which Carpenter could assert ownership or control. Instead, it issued a court-authorized subpoena to a third party to disclose information it alone owned and controlled. That should suffice to resolve this case.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.

Interesting to see what their "interpretation" of the 4th is.
Interesting to see how that squares with "conservative values". No more "values" than they are "conservative".

a reply to: shooterbrody

As a US citizen I would like to petition for the immediate removal of the 4 Supreme Court judges that voted in favor of violating my 4th Amendment rights.

I make this petition on the grounds that they are too incompetent to understand the US constitution and therefore unable to represent me or the nation.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I was just going to post about this. Good news indeed. It was interesting that though Gorsuch didn't side with the majority, he also at the same time seemingly dissented from the dissenters from what I've seen excerpted from his opinion.

The other conservative judges in the minority opinion pretty much echoed one another about this being a burden on law enforcement and would impede investigations. Gorsuch went a different route, critiquing precedent. From what I gather, it appears that he took issue with relying on the rationale of Katz v United States (1967) in almost a sort of "this doesn't go far enough" way. I wonder if it had come down to him, if he would have voted the other way?

I'd also point out that it's a win for those who aren't strict literalists and view the Constitution as a living document. The 4th Amendment clearly could not contain language that would protect our rights against unreasonable search and seizure in a digital age that the Framers had no way of imagining.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'd also point out that it's a win for those who aren't strict literalists and view the Constitution as a living document.

Records are not papers?
A cell phone is not an effect?