If the police arrest you, do they need a warrant to rifle through your cellphone? Courts have been split on the question. Last week the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and rule that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches.
In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling crack cocaine from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found drugs, cash and guns.
The defendant was convicted, but on appeal he argued that accessing the information on his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the man’s argument, ruling that the police should have gotten a warrant before accessing any information on the man’s phone.
The Obama Administration disagrees. In a petition filed earlier this month asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, the government argues that the First Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the rulings of several other appeals courts, as well as with earlier Supreme Court cases. Those earlier cases have given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers. The government contends that a cellphone is no different than any other object a suspect might be carrying.
But as the storage capacity of cellphones rises, that position could become harder to defend. Our smart phones increasingly contain everything about our digital lives: our e-mails, text messages, photographs, browser histories and more. It would be troubling if the police had the power to get all that information with no warrant merely by arresting a suspect.
You haven't had privacy for quite some time now, you just failed to notice.Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches | The Switch
The encroachments into our privacy and rights continue. I'm continually being saddened by moves like this by my government. I know though that I shouldn't be surprised given the amount of information I've digested over the years, but still... I do not like where we're heading as a nation with our policies around privacy and Constitutional rights. It matters not, either, what side of the aisle it comes from because both have done truly unAmerican things to us and will probably only continue to do so. Too bad we can't have a TV or movie President - one that doesn't negotiate with terrorists, strip us of Constitutional rights, invade our privacy by spying on us, or so many other things that are hampering the American experience today.
You haven't had privacy for quite some time now, you just failed to notice.
What needs to happen here is legislation against this type of thing. Federal law, state law, whatever...we need legislatures to prohibit law enforcement from being allowed to invade private lives. Then it wouldn't matter what the presidential administration (whomever it may be at the time) wants.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches | The Switch
The encroachments into our privacy and rights continue. I'm continually being saddened by moves like this by my government. I know though that I shouldn't be surprised given the amount of information I've digested over the years, but still... I do not like where we're heading as a nation with our policies around privacy and Constitutional rights. It matters not, either, what side of the aisle it comes from because both have done truly unAmerican things to us and will probably only continue to do so. Too bad we can't have a TV or movie President - one that doesn't negotiate with terrorists, strip us of Constitutional rights, invade our privacy by spying on us, or so many other things that are hampering the American experience today.
Who is "they"?They will just ignore the law as they ignore the laws & Constitution now.
Fight to stop it? It's far too late for that now.And that matters how?
Just because you may not be aware that your privacy and your rights are being violated doesnt make it right to do and just because you find out now what has been happening doesnt mean you cant fight to stop it.
Who is "they"?
It simply amazes me how much fear the word government instills in people. There is no "they".
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches | The Switch
The encroachments into our privacy and rights continue. I'm continually being saddened by moves like this by my government. I know though that I shouldn't be surprised given the amount of information I've digested over the years, but still... I do not like where we're heading as a nation with our policies around privacy and Constitutional rights. It matters not, either, what side of the aisle it comes from because both have done truly unAmerican things to us and will probably only continue to do so. Too bad we can't have a TV or movie President - one that doesn't negotiate with terrorists, strip us of Constitutional rights, invade our privacy by spying on us, or so many other things that are hampering the American experience today.
There was probable cause; the whole arrest took place as the man was under suspicion of selling crack a felony- the cellphone is an accessory to this crime so police can check it without a warrant.
If the man had been arrested for murder and he had a gun on him, are the police not allowed to take his gun as evidence because of the Second Amendment?
Fight to stop it? It's far too late for that now.
Its never too late to stand up for what is right. We can beat it at the ballot box. elect new blood that will do what is needed to be done to get it done. No compromises, No backroom dealings.
Three election cycles and it can be accomplished. We can do it by the next Presidents 1st midterm election.
Who is "they"?
It simply amazes me how much fear the word government instills in people. There is no "they".
Yeah, elect freedom loving Republican like Bush and Palin, who demogogued opposition to the Patriot Act as "soft on terrorism"
it's a good thing Obama came along when he did... why if Bush was still in office, we would have the Patriot act, the NSA spying on us, and the federal gov3rnment completely ignoring any privacy rights we might think we have.
Silence, Obama voter... you've no leg to stand on.
I hate to have to break the bad news to you, but technology ended privacy long ago. Data never dies.Its never too late to stand up for what is right. We can beat it at the ballot box. elect new blood that will do what is needed to be done to get it done. No compromises, No backroom dealings.
Three election cycles and it can be accomplished. We can do it by the next Presidents 1st midterm election.
Who opposed the Patriot Act and its renewal-- Republicans or Democrats?
I'm for the NSA collecting metadata, so you're whining to the wrong guy. It's the best way to detect all the terrorists Bush created through his stupid policies of invasion and torture.
As to the federal government "completely ignoring privacy rights", you're hyperventilating, as Obamaphobes always do.
who opposed it?... the correct answer would be " not enough of anyone"... as it still exists... Obama has shown no problem with renewing it whatsoever.
yes, i'm sure i am whining to wrong guy... I should be whining to folks who do not support the NSA and their collecting our data... my bad.... carry on, freedom warrior.
i'm sorry about " hyperventilating".. but have no fear, you are not going to lose your title as the biggest hyperventilater on the internet.
like i said, I'm sure glad Obama came on board to rectify that.... by renewing it....twice.And one of the reasons was that Bush and crew demogogued the issue, by alleging that anybody who was against the Patriot Act was "soft on terrorism". Palin's words.
This is what conservatives do.
I spend a few years online opposing the Patriot act... back then it was Republicans supporting it, now it's you lemming Democrats... it's ok, you'll be back to opposing it after your team gets out of office.Thanks Uncle Freedom, I will. Meanwhile you can have a cow about metadata in a computer somewhere while, when you didn't say a word about Bush passing the Patriot Act and dragging the US into two vanity wars and 8 years of torturing captured suspects.
It's what conservatives do.
You should apologize. Anybody who says something so ridiculous can't be taken seriously until they do. Wait, you weren't sincere . . .
There was probable cause; the whole arrest took place as the man was under suspicion of selling crack a felony- the cellphone is an accessory to this crime so police can check it without a warrant.
If the man had been arrested for murder and he had a gun on him, are the police not allowed to take his gun as evidence because of the Second Amendment?
New technologies will require precedent and new rulings on privacy. Though I certainly hope that the supreme court finds the contents of a phone which you own and is in your possession to be private it is within the powers of his position to ask for a definitive ruling on the matter and to challenge the idea those things are private. It is just the way we come up with decisions on these things. It is not Obama's job to interpret the laws of privacy and it is completely appropriate for him to seek a ruling from the highest court on those issues. The only danger I find is that the court itself has become partisan and unreliable in these areas and may make a ruling that follows party lines rather than the ideals which inspired the protections against illegal searches. I cannot blame obama for the hackery of the supreme court in regards to political standing over constitutional interpretation.
Yeah, this sounds like something of a nonissue that the media's trying to inflame. The WH isn't asking for the power to search cell phones in general without a warrant. It's asking for clarification of court cases which, for some reason excluded cell phone searches after somebody was arrested. Generally, if you arrest somebody on probable cause, you don't need a warrant to go through the possessions on his person. Cell phones are a little different since you have to activate them. But in the context of an arrest for a crime that's taking place, I think I might want the police to get into his cell phone to see if he had an accomplice he's warned, etc.
But it is a difficult case on the facts. It isn't about listening into cell phones, helter skelter, as the title suggests.
Haven't you heard of They!? They're out to get you! They give a shyt about you so much that they read your emails, texts; heck they even watch your Skype video calls. They have nothing better to do than spy on you! They watch you ALL the time- they even know what you did last summer!!
People are crazy scared of their shadow... Paranoia is a bitch when they're so narcissistic that they actually think someone gives a shyt that their texting Susie Rotencrotch...
LMFAOL
I can see my point went over your head.The word government doesnt scare anyone, THIS government should scare the sh!t out of you. And if it doesnt, you deserve what you get.
But "they" are not a single entity. They are hundreds and thousands of different people with different ideas, goals, ambitions, etc. There is no "they", just large numbers of people doing what they can to change America into their vision, whatever that vision may be.And they are all "theys"
You haven't had privacy for quite some time now, you just failed to notice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?