Can Police “Search” Your Cellphone Without a Warrant?

[longknife]

That's the question before SCOTUS. There may be far more to any decision than just this narrow interpretation. What about your email? Or any other private online account?

Read more about this @ Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age | CNS News

 

[Jarlaxle]

Need to start encrypting everything...and set up the device so that an incorrect password does a full data wipe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the question before SCOTUS. There may be far more to any decision than just this narrow interpretation. What about your email? Or any other private online account?

Read more about this @ Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age | CNS News

If you encrypt your phone they can't search it with a warrant.

 

[Jarlaxle]

...unless they get a crooked judge to simply lock you up until you give they=m the password!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's the question before SCOTUS. There may be far more to any decision than just this narrow interpretation. What about your email? Or any other private online account?

Read more about this @ Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age | CNS News

The issue has nothing to do with random searches of email or other online accounts:

In a 1969 decision, in Chimel v. California, the Court ruled that if police arrest an individual, they may — without a search warrant — search the body of the person and “the area into which he might reach,” perhaps to destroy evidence or to seize a weapon. That, it said, is to protect the evidence or the officers. That is the origin of the notion that a police search “incident to arrest” can go ahead without a warrant.

From time to time, the Court has explored variations on the Chimel theme, about police searches of various items individuals had close at hand when arrested, and the Justices are now prepared to look into the seizure of cellphones “incident to arrest.” Lower courts are in dispute on whether the Fourth Amendment allows them to search the digital contents of such a phone, without first getting a warrant.

Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy : SCOTUSblog

Consequently, the issue is being reviewed only in the context of incident to arrest jurisprudence, where a criminal suspect is already in police custody based on other evidence.

Given this same Court just last year in Maryland v. King upheld as Constitutional “[w]hen officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” it’s quite likely the Court will uphold the cell phone searches; one’s DNA is just as personal as what one might have on his cell phone, if not more so.

 

[Machaut]

That's the question before SCOTUS. There may be far more to any decision than just this narrow interpretation. What about your email? Or any other private online account?

Read more about this @ Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age | CNS News

Did you only read the headline? They're talking about individual law enforcement officers searching phones that are physically in their custody, not the dragnet-style mass surveillance going on that already applies to your email--and yes, to nearly every other "private" online account as well. The ACLU's argument that phones are "new homes" is completely bogus; they are more akin to new backpacks or purses, given that they store electronic information just like a physical briefcase, for example, would store papers.

hurr durr encryption, i's so smart, paper covers rock so i win lol

Your freedom from self-incrimination is under attack too. Read these:
Federal Judge Orders Defendant To Reveal PGP Password To Law Enforcement
DOJ: We can force you to decrypt that laptop - CNET

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Put a password on your phone. If they're absolutely determined to search it they'll eventually be able to crack it, but unless you're being held for a serious crime it's unlikely they'll go through the trouble.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Or they'll just "tune you up" a bit until you give it to them...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's the question before SCOTUS. There may be far more to any decision than just this narrow interpretation. What about your email? Or any other private online account?

Read more about this @ Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age | CNS News

The issue has nothing to do with random searches of email or other online accounts:

In a 1969 decision, in Chimel v. California, the Court ruled that if police arrest an individual, they may — without a search warrant — search the body of the person and “the area into which he might reach,” perhaps to destroy evidence or to seize a weapon. That, it said, is to protect the evidence or the officers. That is the origin of the notion that a police search “incident to arrest” can go ahead without a warrant.

From time to time, the Court has explored variations on the Chimel theme, about police searches of various items individuals had close at hand when arrested, and the Justices are now prepared to look into the seizure of cellphones “incident to arrest.” Lower courts are in dispute on whether the Fourth Amendment allows them to search the digital contents of such a phone, without first getting a warrant.

Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy : SCOTUSblog

Consequently, the issue is being reviewed only in the context of incident to arrest jurisprudence, where a criminal suspect is already in police custody based on other evidence.

Given this same Court just last year in Maryland v. King upheld as Constitutional “[w]hen officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” it’s quite likely the Court will uphold the cell phone searches; one’s DNA is just as personal as what one might have on his cell phone, if not more so.

Given that this same court just ruled that police can make up probable cause and then search a vehicle I don't see them following the 4th Amendment, that doesn't mean I have to make it easy for them to ignore it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Or they'll just "tune you up" a bit until you give it to them...

Highly unlikely.