Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
The Washington Post ^ | August 19, 2013 | Timothy B. Lee

Posted on 08/19/2013 3:41:11 PM PDT by rarestia

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0bamaordersscotus; democrats; govtabuse; ignoreconstitution; obama; rodeoclowncourt; scotus; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
If they're asking permission, they're already doing it.
1 posted on 08/19/2013 3:41:11 PM PDT by rarestia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rarestia

“YES WE SCAN!”

sorry I stole it.


2 posted on 08/19/2013 3:43:06 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (dont worry about Mexico, put the fence around kalifornia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

3 posted on 08/19/2013 3:44:20 PM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

... at least that’ll make it constitutional, right? (/sarc)


4 posted on 08/19/2013 3:44:51 PM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

a cellphone is different because it involves other persons.


5 posted on 08/19/2013 3:47:20 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

a cellphone is different because it involves other persons.


6 posted on 08/19/2013 3:47:24 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

a cellphone is different because it involves other persons.


7 posted on 08/19/2013 3:47:27 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

I’m all for efficiency in law enforcement - in fact I have an idea to further speed up the arrest/trial/sentencing process. Why don’t you take suspected criminals directly to the Penitentiary when you arrest them, and schedule the trial at your convenience?


8 posted on 08/19/2013 3:52:22 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

I’m all for efficiency in law enforcement - in fact I have an idea to further speed up the arrest/trial/sentencing process. Why don’t you take suspected criminals directly to the Penitentiary when you arrest them, and schedule the trial at your convenience?


9 posted on 08/19/2013 3:52:27 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

I’m all for efficiency in law enforcement - in fact I have an idea to further speed up the arrest/trial/sentencing process. Why don’t you take suspected criminals directly to the Penitentiary when you arrest them, and schedule the trial at your convenience?


10 posted on 08/19/2013 3:52:32 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia


11 posted on 08/19/2013 3:52:49 PM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER

Sorry for the dupe posts, FR really glitch tonight...


12 posted on 08/19/2013 3:55:36 PM PDT by ZOOKER (Until further notice the /s is implied...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

13 posted on 08/19/2013 3:56:07 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

Um ... I’m pretty sure that the guy in your picture is General of the Armies John “Blackjack” Pershing.


14 posted on 08/19/2013 3:58:34 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sopater
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."
15 posted on 08/19/2013 4:03:37 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER; Travis McGee
Why don’t you take suspected criminals directly to the Penitentiary when you arrest them, and schedule the trial at your convenience?

I believe that's already provided for.

In the NDAA that Odinga signed.

Intended for use on opponents to the regime, conservatives, and other untermenschen.

16 posted on 08/19/2013 4:04:38 PM PDT by Old Sarge (Opinions are like orgasms: only mine count, and I couldn't care less if you have one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

This presents a good opportunity for an entrepreneur, to pre-load phones with “safe” data, like cat pictures, or even data that could at least muddle the criminal complaint so much that it would ease acquittal.


17 posted on 08/19/2013 4:07:33 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER

Hanging arrested persons on the spot is a sure deterrent to crime.


18 posted on 08/19/2013 4:09:22 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Where's my pressure cooker backpack wmd ricin laced al qaeda terrorist BASSELOPE?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Start with Bozo and his entire administration. F-ing fascists MFer’s


19 posted on 08/19/2013 4:15:26 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Isn’t anyone very disturbed that there is any doubt that this is illegal on the very face of it?


20 posted on 08/19/2013 4:16:21 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

i seriously hope you forgot your sarc tag.

it’s personal property of one person. the fact that it can call others is not an issue.


21 posted on 08/19/2013 4:33:45 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Reason 4,912 toe end the WOD.


22 posted on 08/19/2013 4:34:52 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Exactly what I thought.


23 posted on 08/19/2013 4:35:32 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

I am. I wonder if, in the cases involving address books etc., search means looking for contraband or searching for the information contained therein or both.


24 posted on 08/19/2013 4:40:19 PM PDT by pluvmantelo (A Greenie is one distraught knowing that somewhere, someone is living above subsistence level.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie

Not really, since the SCOTUS has long held that any conversation that uses a cellphone has no expectation of privacy. They have really beaten the issue to death, that any and every form of electronic communication can be monitored by the government at whim.

In most cases, even face to face communication has little protection. If the government installs listening devices, it is a crime to tamper with them, interfere with them, or even point them out to others.


25 posted on 08/19/2013 4:48:34 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Be Brave! Fear is just the opposite of Nar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rarestia; Perdogg; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; ...

FReepmail me or Perdogg to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

26 posted on 08/19/2013 4:49:38 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

I’ve never seen a picture of Pershing wearing a hat with a red star on it, have you?


27 posted on 08/19/2013 4:55:20 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Simple really. I do not use a cell phone, and I never will.


28 posted on 08/19/2013 4:55:41 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Simple really, we all need a really good encoding app for cellphone data.


29 posted on 08/19/2013 4:56:52 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism article:(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Police who are not lazy can use tree charts to eventually have a database containing information on every individual in their jurisdiction who uses and/or sells drugs. All they have to do is listen to informants, takes notes on people producing funny smells, record license numbers and descriptions at parties and record the information with pen and paper to be entered with a computer later on. Eventually, they can have all of the evidence and testimony that they’ll need without grabbing cell phones on questionable grounds.


30 posted on 08/19/2013 5:01:59 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Well when one believesthe Constitution is a charter of negative liberties the govt can do anything it wants.


31 posted on 08/19/2013 5:38:18 PM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
In most cases, even face to face communication has little protection. If the government installs listening devices, it is a crime to tamper with them, interfere with them, or even point them out to others.

That presumes you knew they were government listening devices. To me they might look like buttons or pieces of that old router I took apart... Sorry, just thought it was electronic debris from our modern lifestyle, cat toys, etc. ...they're somewhere at the local dump by now... Now, prove I knew they were government listening devices that I shouldn't have tampered with.

32 posted on 08/19/2013 5:41:01 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Thanks for linking to the print version.


33 posted on 08/19/2013 5:44:27 PM PDT by upchuck (My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We'll see about that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie
Hanging arrested persons on the spot is a sure deterrent to crime.

Hanging tyrants on the spot is a sure deterrent to despotism.

F U B O !

34 posted on 08/19/2013 5:52:47 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine; thouworm; Nachum; LucyT; maggief

When will it ever end? Someone/group needs to stand up! Who?


35 posted on 08/19/2013 6:13:47 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

The Supreme Court found a constitutional right to privacy in their Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court can’t so easily let Obama ride rough over their ruling. Oh wait, Chief Traitor Benedict Roberts... Never mind!


36 posted on 08/19/2013 6:23:20 PM PDT by RJL (There's no greed like the greed of a liberal politician buying votes with your money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten

Agreed. Robinson opened a door but I don’t think it really applies and Edwards seems wrongly decided but I still have some reading to do. It will be interesting to read the 1st Circuit’s reasoning here. I think SCOTUS has over time trashed the idea of being Secure in Person and Papers.

But here’s the thing for the cops to consider ... this was your garden variety low level crack dealer. Pushing a few buttons on the cellphone would be low risk. But damn, consider a jihadist who has a dude like Q outfitting the phones. With a button press or two, they could have set off a car bomb [damn, NSA will ALL OVER this post] or worse. The last thing I’d want to do is to mess with any of their electronics.

In fact, if I was a forensics guy, I’d want a lab with a mini cell tower so the phone wouldn’t lose signal but controlled by me so it couldn’t make an outside call. Even then I’d treat it like a rattlesnake.

But I digress. Searching a cellphone or even reading a pencil-and-paper address book should not be done without a warrant.


37 posted on 08/19/2013 7:14:33 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate." George F. Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

all the more reason that it needs a warrant...you missed the point


38 posted on 08/19/2013 7:21:57 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" of a person, his home or belongings by the government. Generally, probable cause is required to search anything in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) (a non-public place or activity) with a few exceptions such as consent or an emergency.

This is a case of a search incident to arrest. In a search incident to arrest the police may without a warrant search the person himself or the immediate surroundings for the protection of the police.

It seems to me that a person does have REP in his cellphone and unless the police have probable cause, I don't see any valid exception that would allow a warrantless search of a cellphone incident to an arrest.

39 posted on 08/19/2013 7:24:01 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Antiyuppie
Isn’t anyone very disturbed that there is any doubt that this is illegal on the very face of it?

I am. I am also skeptical that the SC will decide the Consitution means what it says.
40 posted on 08/19/2013 7:26:54 PM PDT by Girlene (Hey, NSA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Alex Trebek: "The answer is...'Unreasonable search and seizure'. For $1000, what is the question, Justice Roberts?"

Leni

41 posted on 08/19/2013 7:37:07 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

42 posted on 08/19/2013 8:21:07 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Come on, people! Wrap yourselves in the flag and be Super Patriots! If this, that, or whatever is for “national security,” we don’t need no steenkin Constitution! All hail The State!


43 posted on 08/19/2013 8:53:14 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Don’t own a cell phone. I borrow one on long trips say to doc( 200 miles round trip or more) but always take the care out...just precautionary...


44 posted on 08/19/2013 9:52:45 PM PDT by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28- 8:38"...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

I do love what the ‘War on Drugs’ has done for my liberty!


45 posted on 08/20/2013 5:21:21 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

You’re incorrect by several decimal points to the right. It’s easily up over 300 million reasons.


46 posted on 08/20/2013 5:23:51 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
"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."

Yeah, there's that... :-)
47 posted on 08/20/2013 9:31:52 AM PDT by Sopater (Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? - Matthew 20:15a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

FReepathon
Day 51.

Please donate today.

48 posted on 08/20/2013 1:06:21 PM PDT by RedMDer (http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Careful.

Obama might be reading this thread...

...and you might give him an idea.


49 posted on 08/20/2013 1:46:45 PM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

If it had been Bush, the NYT would have it on its front page every day.


50 posted on 08/21/2013 8:30:56 AM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson