Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > US Supreme Court hears arguments about warrantless cellphone searches

US Supreme Court hears arguments about warrantless cellphone searches
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2014, 02:34 PM
 
This iteration of the US Supreme Court gathering has not only heard the Aereo case, but also a pair of cases discussing the requirements of police officers searching suspects' phones. Two cases heard before the court this week -- one involving a flip phone, the other a smartphone -- were heard back-to-back on Tuesday, with the need for a warrant to search a person's phone being the centerpiece of both hearings.

The hearing centered around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause. An example given by the court is a person detained for not wearing a seat belt. The question was asked if an officer has the right to rifle through the person not wearing the seat belt's cellphone to see if there is any incriminating evidence of any other illicit behavior on the device.

The Riley v. California case specifically asks if a police officer in the field is allowed to rummage through the digital contents of an arrested suspect in the field. Once again, the court was thrown into a morass of technical terms and service name-dropping, all to decide if California police had the right to search David Riley's phone, just because his cellphone had a picture of him standing next to a red Oldsmobile possibly involved in a drive-by shooting.

The Riley arrest started with a traffic stop, and subsequent detention from driving on a suspended license. A pair of warrantless searches of the cellphone ultimately led to ballistics tests on discovered weapons, which ultimately led to the individual's conviction for a drive-by shooting with no witnesses and little other evidence. An appeal failed, as California's state Supreme Court had already given its blessing to warrantless cellphone searches.

The rulings in the pair of cases is expected before the end of June. Precedent from the case rulings will form a de facto standard for the pastiche of federal and state rulings on the matter.


( Last edited by NewsPoster; May 1, 2014 at 06:13 AM. )
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2014, 03:52 PM
 
keep your phone locked - and I mean by a pass key, not by a fingerprint. You don't have to give anybody your passkey but you are required to unlock your phone with your fingerprint if there is a warrant for it. Giving out your passkey is protected by the fifth amendment where you don't have to give out information that can lead to self discrimination.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2