Posted on 04/30/2014 8:10:20 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
WASHINGTON — Confronting a right-to-privacy question in the new world of smartphones, the Supreme Court justices sounded closely split Tuesday on whether police officers should be free to search through the phone of any person who is arrested.
Justice Elena Kagan, the newest and youngest member of the high court, urged her colleagues to insist on protecting privacy.
“People carry their entire lives on their cellphone,” she said during the argument involving a San Diego case. If there are no limits, a police officer could stop a motorist for not having seat belt buckled and download a huge amount of information, looking for some evidence of wrongdoing, she warned.
Such a search could include “every single email, all their bank records, all their medical records,” she said, as well as GPS data that would show everywhere they had traveled recently.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. pressed the opposite view. Police who make an arrest have always been permitted to check a wallet, a billfold or a purse, and that might include personal photos.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Just Damn!!! Kagan making more Constitutional sense than Alito???
This is a logical point. And I'm certainly not in favor of inconveniencing the police department if they are working for We, The People instead of the Ruling Class. But how many actually are these days?
Judges are generally tech stupid.
Just remember they are from the same government types that created the health exchange.
These are the same mentality types that think “portal” is not the same as website.
These are the same mental midgets that think cloud computer is different from “renting space on someone else’s” server. (ie 100% hackable)
A wallet contains physical material.
A physical phone is a filing cabinet with information. A phone can be impounded without loss of data or time or missing physical items.
The most frequent purpose of checking the wallet, purse or billfold has been on the premise of possible contraband (drugs) or weapons. Electronic media is not a ‘hidey hole’ for either’. The comparison and translation to electronic media is pure BS in my opinion.
Further, IF there were even evidence contained therein with regard to potential misdeeds OR TERRORISM plans, actions or thoughts, a regular stop-and-check is not a plausible venue for such.
In my mind, the argument for allowing it is complete tyrannical horseshit.
Correct my only words will be “I would like my attorney please”
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
OR
“Don’t you need to ‘arrest’ me before searching my truck/phone etc...?
If so, I am familiar with my Miranda rights, just skip down to the part of
—YES- I wish to be represented by an attorney.
Thank you.” (ZIP LIP motion)
Something, which I might add, while unlikely is still far more likely than one of the bozos in the TSA ever catching one in the airport check-in line. Once we agreed to put up with that security theater jobs program for morons, it was only a matter of time before the camel stuck his nose further into the tent.
Some of the newest phones are now shipping with integrated fingerprint scanners.
the lawyers who give police departments search warrant advice are generally political appointees and legally deficient in knowledge.
It should be automatic police misconduct to arrest just to arrest and let the judge figure it out.
it is an abandonment of duty to do that path.
how far is the search allowed to go? just the content on the phone? facebook page? google searches? shopping history? emails accessable but not on the phone? all bank records?
Same basic argument I posted previously about government listening to private conversations. The issue is not a convoluted “right to privacy” as much as the articulated 4th Amendment “right to be secure” from government intrusion. Sounds about the same, but the critical difference is “the right to privacy” is construed as something the government has a right to enforce (thus giving government power over “privacy rights” of individuals), whereas “the right to be secure” is a clear proscription against wrongful government interference of individuals. The 4th Amendment “right to be secure” is pointed at limiting government, not giving it more enforcement rights as construed with “right to privacy.”
Scalia: Governmental listening to private conversations does not apply to the persons, houses, papers, and effects protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment. So Scalia is saying that government doesn’t have to have to show any particular reason, certainly not a probable-cause reason, to listen in on private conversations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&app=desktop
Me: Not sure I agree with that. Here is where I think Scalia is weak and conflicts, IMO, with the original-intent approach of constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork – when Scalia uses the letter of the text to trump original intent. If original intent and understanding may be reasonably suspected to conflict with the text per se, especially in the current usage of the word(s), a good-faith effort should be made to uncover original intent and understanding. Here, that effort might very well show that something in persons, houses, papers, or effects that may have in fact included governmental listening to private conversations.
Examples:
• secure in your “houses” could certainly include wiretapping
• secure in your “papers” or “effects” may very well have been intended to include private communications.
IMO, the Constitutional issue in government listening (NSA and elsewhere) is not the level of threat, but whether the government has probable cause and whether a warrant would be required (usually required for a house search).
“factory reset”
removes everything including access to email accounts, address books, call logs, sms logs.
When you get you're phone back then just type in your e-mail address and password and your contacts are back.
“factory reset”
removes everything including access to email accounts, address books, call logs, sms logs.
When you get your phone back then just type in your e-mail address and password and your contacts are back.
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.