• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

Jango

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
5,587
Reaction score
2,291
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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.

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.

:(
 
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.
 
You haven't had privacy for quite some time now, you just failed to notice.

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.
 
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.

They will just ignore the law as they ignore the laws & Constitution now.
 
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.

:(

More WOD nonsense. This administration is as terrible on civil liberties as Bush was.
 
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?
 
They will just ignore the law as they ignore the laws & Constitution now.
Who is "they"?

It simply amazes me how much fear the word government instills in people. There is no "they".
 
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.
Fight to stop it? It's far too late for that now.
 
I know someone that won't use her Kroger Customer card because "they" are watching what she buys. She vaugely thinks the "they" are government, not Kroger employees. By the way, the last time I used my Kroger card I saved $0.60 per gallon on gas.
 
Who is "they"?

It simply amazes me how much fear the word government instills in people. There is no "they".

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
 
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.

:(

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Yeah, elect freedom loving Republican like Bush and Palin, who demogogued opposition to the Patriot Act as "soft on terrorism"
 
Who is "they"?

It simply amazes me how much fear the word government instills in people. There is no "they".

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.

And they are all "theys"...they dont represent me, only my Congressman represents me and I dont believe he is doing a well enough job at it...there are 500+ other elected people and thousands of non elected people that do not represent me in this government. They do not represent you they only represent themselves and what can line their pockets. More millionaires are born in congress every year through "contributions" from special interests...banks, unions, oil...the list goes on and on of those that "they" represent before you or I.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
I hate to have to break the bad news to you, but technology ended privacy long ago. Data never dies.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

i'm sorry about " hyperventilating".. but have no fear, you are not going to lose your title as the biggest hyperventilater on the internet.

You should apologize. Anybody who says something so ridiculous can't be taken seriously until they do. Wait, you weren't sincere . . .
 
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.
like i said, I'm sure glad Obama came on board to rectify that.... by renewing it....twice.



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.
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.

aww crap, i just ****ed up your meme, didn't i... sorry about that, mememaster.....remind me to lie next time.. together, we can keep your narratives intact, we just gotta work together.
maybe a password will work.. just type " rutabaga" and i'll know when to lie about stuff to keep your narrative on track.


You should apologize. Anybody who says something so ridiculous can't be taken seriously until they do. Wait, you weren't sincere . . .

i was very sincere.... you absolutely will not lose your title to the likes of me.
 
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.

The above pretty much summarizes my take on the matter.

This isn't the first time the question of "personal privacy" and cellphones have come up where clarification of the 2nd Amendment is concerned. Folks just have to remember that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect citizens from improper (warrantless) search of their homes and unauthorized seizure thereof. However, the Supreme Court has long ruled that local, state and federal authorities can search your vehicle as long as they have probably cause to do so.

In the case of the OP, searching the man's cellphone for phone calls or text messages would fall under probably cause since the issues centers around illegal drug dealing. And as we all know many drug dealers use their cell phones today to make contact with their clients in much the same way as beepers use to be their communications tool of choice. So, if beepers were fair game back then, why can't cellphones also be in-bounds today? Different communications device, more personal data, but the information/contact scheme is the same.

The Supreme Court does need to rule on this issue soon.
 
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
:)
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.
I can see my point went over your head.

And they are all "theys"
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom