31 votes

Supreme Court Takes Up Police Power to Search Cell Phones Tuesday April 29, 2014

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will take up a hot-button issue of privacy in the digital age: Can police, without a warrant, rummage through the cell phones of people they arrest?

It's an important case, given that more than 90 percent of American adults now own a cell phone and 58 percent have a smart phone.

And more than 12 million people are arrested in the U.S. each year, most of them for minor offenses, such as drunk driving or getting in fights.

Police also have authority to make arrests for fine-only infractions like driving without a seat belt, littering, or jaywalking.

So, allowing police to search the text, photo, and video files on all of those smart phones would severely compromise personal privacy, says Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford Law School.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What are you worried about ...

...if the Supremes keep it up, soon they will have compromised the entire Bill of Rights.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

here are other oral arguments

Don't know how long before it is posted here.


I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

friday 4:32

Not here yet, bet they're having a really long conference...or dozing.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

Saturday morning

I still don't see it on supreme court site, But watched it on c-span this morning.

I'll take my Liberty, it's not yours to give.

When will we have a verdict?

This a huge. Wish I could up vote this 17.4 trillion times.


"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

Wish I could up vote this

Wish I could up vote this 17.4 trillion times.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Not until summer


He's the man.



"I'm Ron Paul." - Ron Paul

Look at the wording of this balloon floated "news" article caref


"It's important because 90% of Americans have cell phones."

This is code for "if SCOTUS rules in favor of warrantless searches, being that there is no expectation of privacy in public, all government agencies are now authorized to have 100% access to 100% of cell phone data 100% of the time."

It's important to decode the coded statements. Logically speaking, it doesn't matter if 1% or 99% of Americans have cell phones, because the % of cell phone carrying by the public is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the constitutionality of warrantless searches.

If found to be UNconstitutional then it wouldn't matter if only 1 total person in the country had a cell phone or 400,000,000 had one. It would be unconstitutional even for the 1.

So, why is it relevant that "90% have cell phones." To answer that question, think like a bad guy. In the bad guys mind, right now they do not have access to all cell phone data all of the time. Additionally, occasionally when they want it they have to expend time, money and energy getting the access they want. That's a big pain in the @$$. Therefore, from the bad guys perspective, and from their objective of 100% access to 100% 100% of the time, it is highly relevant that given it is such a rich source of data and because SO MANY PEOPLE have them, it is a natural and efficient conclusion to "streamline" that access and make it as cheap, efficient and universal as possible.

So, if SCOTUS rules in favor, what you will see is the legitimization of the 100% fishing net access the government already enjoys to all phones, calls and smart phone data. That data will feed into the f*sion centers and be available to every cop and bureaucrat without them even needing to ask for your phone! They will already have access to it via their onboard computer systems.

And this by 2016, 2017 at the very latest.

TwelveOhOne's picture

And, I would expect: by end-of-2014, "smart" phones

won't really be so any longer.

If my phone can create a VNC (or RDP, or some other VPN-type tunnel) to a computer I control, and act as a form of "display virtualization" for it (with appropriate access controls), then if some rogue agent obtains access to my device?

They just need a $5 wrench in order to obtain my secrets:

But -- they won't have access to my secrets without harming me, similar to "breaking and entering", if you just left it unlocked it would be "entering" and wouldn't be a crime.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Doesn't need to be that complex.

The central telecom servers pull it. N.A (.=S) accesses it right off the central servers and then forwards it on to Fxsion Centers and every cop car and bureaucrat has access without even asking you for it.

New Executive Order

Immediately after the Supreme Court votes 9-0 in favor of the police, President Obummer signs new "Executive Order" declaring "You've got the right to have no rights"

Don't give them any ideas!

All for your "safety" and against the "turrists", of course.

Sick police

The police are mentally ill, they don't understand that all this "power" they are constantly grabbing from the people will ultimately impact their "loved ones"...family, children, etc.
They are putting the noose around their and their offspring's for generations to come.
When the cops "look inside" your vehicle, they have performed a "search"...if you look at Webster's definition. They have already violated the 4th amendment when "searching" aka "looking" to see whether you've got your seat belt on or not.
Also, many states were "tricked" into passing seat belt laws by the Federal government, then those "voluntary" laws got changed to "mandatory" laws...to benefit the corporations.
So, I feel that the Supreme Court will side with the cops, not the average Joe on the street. This is the slippery slope that Dr. Paul had warned about for decades, but sadly, too many sheeple are not paying attention. The police are sick for enforcing corporate laws on the people. Where are my Free-Dumbs?

I don't know why they would

I don't know why they would need a warrant, since the police who impound a car do not need a warrant to search it, since it -the car- is in the possession of the police; I'm sure this will be the same for a cellphone as it is for the automobile. I do not agree with this practice, so don't complain to me about it; I'm just telling you all what the practice is for autos and what it most-likely will be for phones also.

So if I'm one of the 10% who does not have a cell phone

Does this mean I'm more likely to be inordinately detained/stripped searched/harassed because I surely must be "hiding the phone"?

This is the kind of crap that goes through my head because sure enough it will happen to some unsuspecting person.

I'm worse than Johnny Depp, I hate a phone.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Michael Nystrom's picture

I long for the days before smart phones

The cell phone itself is cool and handy.

But the smart phone, with all of its connections to everyone and everything - texts, Line, GPS, the internet, etc. I could do without it, honestly. Except in this current line of work, it is kind of handy. Except it turns me into an obsessive. I check the DP even when I'm driving! (Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.)

He's the man.

Obsessive = top of your head visual to the world

Every time I EVER saw Jesse Benton (and that was a lot due to being in SC/1st in the South etc), virtually all I ever saw was the top of his head. He was always looking down at his phone. I thought it was really tacky to not at least act like he's interested. I'm noticing the same behavior now just about everywhere I look while out in public.

Before long "they" will database the "fingerprint swirl" of the top of heads in order to identify. Yikes.

Many Rastas are in fear of "cellular and pagers" and refuse them. "Cellular" could actually hold ironic double meaning for how the phones root down into your "life building blocks", aka "Cells". Maybe don't put the phone up to your ear and then maybe you'll only get "finger cancer"....I don't know. I still hold to the old proverb "Anything that seems to good to be true, often is".

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

More Rasta words


This might need a thread of its own...

My personal Rasta favorite:

"Shitstem" = system

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Michael Nystrom's picture

De system is a fraud

De system is a graveyard.

Mutabaruka starts rocking the song at 2:19:


He's the man.

Thanks, I also set that aside for my husband to hear :)

If you really dig patois, you'll dig this "speech" (tearing off a good strip) from Peter Tosh

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Michael Nystrom's picture

I welcome that thread,


He's the man.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Remind me to wear a hat :)

So they don't see that fingerprint swirl.

In Taiwan, they call them "The Bent Neck Tribe" - people always looking down, fiddling with their phones.

Yesterday I scared a girl who was walking right towards me on the sidewalk with her face in her phone. She looked up and saw me in front of her, and was startled. Not that I haven't done the same thing.

I do find it sad. I see it in Samantha, zoned into that phone while I'm driving. It must be a terrible thing for parents to see in their kids.

On the other hand, one has to keep up with the times, or be left behind.

An excellent book on this topic I read a few years ago is Hamlet's Blackberry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. I think it was published in 2010, when "Blackberries" were all the rage. The iPhone has since killed them, and the company is nearly out of business.

My first phone was a Nokia, and now that company is all but kaput.

Things are moving fast. Before you know it, the phone will be wired directly into our brains, so we don't have to walk around all stooped over.


He's the man.
Michael Nystrom's picture

This will be a telling decision

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.

- - -

Knowing this court, I bet they will allow it. Which means the time to revolt is coming that much closer.

He's the man.

A phone is a personal 'effect'

Effect: noun usually plural (effects) - personal belongings

Hayek and others have pointed out time and time again that Central Planners bastardize language in order to change laws and customs without changing the 'wording'. They simply redefine the word and in the best cases make the word moot or without meaning.

Have you ever downloaded your phone?

Everything you ever done from pics to web sites you look at, Will be on your down load. Yes they are watching you. Ever know a love one that accused you off something you didn't do? That person is the one that has done it. But they feel better if they think you done it too. Its called shameless quilt. I believe. Our elected government serve's itself .Not the ones who elect them.

Money talks and dogs bark

Place your bets

I'm giving two to one that they say it is just fine and dandy to search someone's cell phone that has been arrested (or is that detained ? )

They already ruled that no

They already ruled that no warrant is needed when there is an anonymous tip on the person, so why would they let the 4th amendment bar them from the jackpot on the phone? These jackasses and jackals aren't going to let anything get in the way of gutting this country out into a complete and utter police and surveillance state.

That this is even a tough question IS tyranny normalcy

Moral Law is based on doing unto others as you'd have others do unto you.

Whenever one or more layers of hierarchy are assumed to have granted ANY elected or appointed person, ANY arbitrary power over others more than they were born, and will die with; then is the Moral Law broken, and tyranny overtakes the idolators who give titles and digits more power than they ought, eh?

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them. - Frederick Douglass