“A US supreme court ruling issued Friday barred police from accessing cell phone data such as call listings and location data without first obtaining a search warrant, in a landmark decision in favor of privacy protections…”

…”Chief justice John Roberts was joined by the court’s four liberal-leaning justices in writing for the majority in the case, Carpenter v United States. The four dissenting justices each wrote a separate dissent…”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...ta-without-a-warrant

Link to decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...7pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

The Court emphaizes that the decision is narrow. It is not weighing in on real-time cell-site records, and "does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security."

Here’s the limiting language from the majority opinion in Carpenter:

Our decision today is a narrow one. We do not express a view on matters not before us: real-time CSLI or “tower dumps” (a download of information on all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval). We do not disturb the application of Smith and Miller or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and
tools, such as security cameras. Nor do we address other business records that might incidentally reveal location information. Further, our opinion does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or national security. As Justice Frankfurter noted when considering new innovations in airplanes and radios, the Court must tread carefully in such cases, to ensure that we do not “embarrass the future.” Northwest Air- lines, Inc. v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292, 300 (1944).

I don't understand why this has to be a liberal/conservative issue?

I wouldn't think that they could search your phone at all without a warrant.

Fourth Amendment of US Constitution

quote:

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.

much to do about nothing. If this is a landmark case, it must be a slow news day.

Although the decision could be considered wrong in light of previous SCOTUS precedents, I can't say I disagree with it as a policy matter.

Still, is this gonna be a thing with Roberts....always joining the liberal wing? There was the Obamacare case, the recent case on internet sales tax (that one was a weird one withGinsburg joining Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch) and now this one. It seems he is often guided more by what a decision will mean for the court's reputation than by a neutral interpretation of the law.

In the long term this is a good decision. It will do little or nothing to hinder police investigations

This is a good ruling since in all aspects what the cops did was search and seize on an ongoing basis without a warrant.

The court said it was a very narrow ruling and I think the applicability will be be in narrow circumstances.

Without saying it, Stingray and similar will be upheld as lawful.

It also stands for the simple proposition of: if you have PC go get a warrant.

Interesting. So now we officially have a newly expressed rule that "cell phones and the services they provide are 'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society" (Riley is a slip opinion and therefore subject to further editing by the Justices).

The rest of the logic, for those who care to follow it: "Virtually any activity on the phone generates CSLI, including incoming calls, texts, or e-mails and countless other data connections that a phone automatically makes when checking for news, weather, or social media updates. Apart from disconnecting the phone from the network, there is no way to avoid leaving behind a trail of location data. As a result, in no meaningful sense does the user voluntarily "assume[] the risk" of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements. " (page 17)

I wonder if that principle can effectively be extended to cars at some point. So far cars have been distinguished from cell phones, but has anyone sat down yet and tried to prove (legally) that they're the same thing?

The court decision speaks of having a privacy expectation when it comes to information about people's specific movements in the discussion covered by the first two paragraphs of this post. Does this mean that we're going to eventually see police obligated to get a warrant in order to follow someone passing through public spaces from one specific location to another?

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Interesting. So now we officially have a newly expressed rule that "cell phones and the services they provide are 'such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life' that carrying one is indispensable to participation in modern society" (Riley is a slip opinion and therefore subject to further editing by the Justices).

The rest of the logic, for those who care to follow it: "Virtually any activity on the phone generates CSLI, including incoming calls, texts, or e-mails and countless other data connections that a phone automatically makes when checking for news, weather, or social media updates. Apart from disconnecting the phone from the network, there is no way to avoid leaving behind a trail of location data. As a result, in no meaningful sense does the user voluntarily "assume[] the risk" of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements. " (page 17)

I wonder if that principle can effectively be extended to cars at some point. So far cars have been distinguished from cell phones, but has anyone sat down yet and tried to prove (legally) that they're the same thing?

Apples and Volkswagens. This ruling changes nothing in day to day operations of 99 per cent of LE agencies out there. The ruling was narrow and the fact that it specifically exempted “surveillance techniques and video cameras” is the biggy.

What I'm thinking about isn't so much what it does right now. What I'm thinking about is how these concepts could be redefined in future court cases.

From a judge's perspective, apples and Volkswagens are round and some Volkswagens are red. Or, of course, Apples and Volkswagens are modern electricity-dependant technology, and some Volkswagens are off-white.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
What I'm thinking about isn't so much what it does right now. What I'm thinking about is how these concepts could be redefined in future court cases.

I think the answer is still no, and it will have no effect whatsoever in future cases. Really after reading the case a couple of times, I don’t think this will affect anyone who has the capability to do a tower dump. I also think that it sorta funny how the Court spoke about the suspects robbing a radio shack, and then took the time to add “ironically” in parentheses.

I would have preferred the approach Justice Gorsuch wanted as expressed in his dissent.

Police need a warrant to search your computer. Modern phones are little more than a hand held computer.

As part of my current job, I do a lot of cell phone examinations. We've ALWAYS needed a search warrant to obtain information from the phone. Hell, I need a subpoena just to get basic subscriber information from a carrier. A basic investigation into something like possessing and distributing child pornography can take months because of all the waves of subpoenas, court orders, and warrants that have to be sent out to obtain information to enable additional waves of subpoenas, orders, and warrants. Internet crimes is an extremely frustrating field of investigations.

The title of the thread is a bit off. This decision does not really bar police from accessing cell phone data without a warrant.

What it does is bar police from accessing some cell phone provider data, without a warrant.

Phones ooze data all the time, and the provider collects it. Whether or not you have 'tracking enabled' for your apps or your OS, the phone and nearby towers are dancing all the time, and keeping track of the interactions. You can't stop this - not if you want your phone to work as a phone. Sure, you could keep it in airplane mode all the time and use it as a big-screen calculator without dancing with towers, but that's not reasonable.

You haven't agreed to provide that data. You haven't done anything to remove a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Whereas pressing a 'send' button to ask your provider to make a call, which you obviously know must give data to your provider in order to make the call happen, this happens while the phone is just sitting there, powered on and in your pocket being left alone.

It is an entirely reasonable expectation that your privacy should not be violated just by having a cell phone powered on as you move around, and that data generated automatically by such events should be subject to Constitutional protection.

I have not read the opinions, but I am surprised that this was not unanimous.

Read Gorsuch”s dissent and it makes perfect sense. The third party exception wasn’t challenged by Carpenters attorneys. If they had over turned that, it would have made LE’s job much harder. For the 0.1 percent of LE this affects, it is trivial.

So when I "forget my passcode" do they just break in to it?

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
So when I "forget my passcode" do they just break in to it?

Yes. But, it has nothing to do with this ruling.

That has always required a warrant for a forensic evaluation.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
much to do about nothing. If this is a landmark case, it must be a slow news day.

Now why in the world would you say that?