Court: No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

[OohPooPahDoo]

Exactly. if the cops think you brought up some product from Meh-hee-coe, they can track your past movements from what towers your cell phone automatically "pinged."

Its just another scam to bypass the 4th and 5th amendments.

.

The 4th amendment protects citizens from search and seizure of their own records without a warrant - it doesn't protect citizens from the search and seizures of OTHER citizens records.

If you commit a murder and leave the weapon in the bathroom of a bar - the government only needs to serve a warrant on the bar owner to obtain the weapon (or the bar owner can volunteer to turn it over) - they don't have to serve one on you. The 4th amendment only protects you from having records and property in your actual possession from being seized without your approval or a warrant - this includes property on your person, property in your home, in your car - it DOESN'T include property that belongs to others! Records of phone calls kept by phone companies in the normal course of business belong to the phone company.


If you buy fertilizer to build a bomb - the record that the seller of that fertilizer keeps can be turned over voluntarily by the seller or the government can obtain it with a warrant against the seller - they don't need a warrant against you.

 

[Yurt]

yet....they need a warrant to get land line records an poo poo can't understand why cell phones should be the same

edit...he does understand but we'll see if he can explain why there should be a difference

 

[Yurt]

The lines aren't what is at issue. Its the record of the transaction, not the content of the phone call.

you obviously haven't read the privacy for land line cases. if you had, you wouldn't have made such a dumb comment as the land lines also store your information like cell phones.

And the government only needs to serve a warrant on the land line provider to get those records.

i take back my prior comment. yes, you are correct.

tell me why cell phones should be different?

 

[Yurt]

The lines aren't what is at issue. Its the record of the transaction, not the content of the phone call.

you obviously haven't read the privacy for land line cases. if you had, you wouldn't have made such a dumb comment as the land lines also store your information like cell phones.

Well sure. In neither case can the govt "listen" w/o a warrant. But, yeah they can get the phone companies list of what numbers you called, and the phone companies list of what towers tracked your cell ... and what numbers your cell called.

edit: I don't see where the govt must get a warrant for a list of calls made from a landline. To listen, yeah, but not just a list of number.

NSA has been collecting records on every call made in America for the last seven years | The Verge

that is why people are in an uproar over the NSA snooping...click on the link the op, i believe it mentions LL's

 

[g5000]

How funny is it people are bitching about a court decision which is merely ratifying legislation which was signed into law by Reagan?

The Nazi references are particularly funny.

 

[Contumacious]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

That is correct. Just like your medical record belongs to the provider or hospital. You can have a copy of it, but it doesn't belong to you. Phone records have always been discoverable without a warrant. There is no difference just because you are using a cell phone.

Bullshit.

This is a transaction a contract between the cell provider and the individual. The government has no authority to impair the obligation of a contract.

.

 

[g5000]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

That is correct. Just like your medical record belongs to the provider or hospital. You can have a copy of it, but it doesn't belong to you. Phone records have always been discoverable without a warrant. There is no difference just because you are using a cell phone.

Bullshit.

This is a transaction a contract between the cell provider and the individual. The government has no authority to impair the obligation of a contract.

.

You have it all wrong.

Read the law for yourself: 18 USC Chapter 206 - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Signed into law by Reagan himself.

 

[Yurt]

looks like it will be headed to scotus:

But it is hardly the last word on the subject. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that federal judges may require warrants for such data, and the ACLU and other privacy groups this month filed a brief to the 4th Circuit urging that warrants be required for all such government requests.

Government can grab cell phone location records without warrant, appeals court says - Investigations

 

[g5000]

looks like it will be headed to scotus:

But it is hardly the last word on the subject. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that federal judges may require warrants for such data, and the ACLU and other privacy groups this month filed a brief to the 4th Circuit urging that warrants be required for all such government requests.

Government can grab cell phone location records without warrant, appeals court says - Investigations

Please see post 12 in this topic.

Reagan and Bush, Jr. signed laws which made all this possible. "Tough on crime", ya know...

 

[Contumacious]

As further evidence that federal courts today are nothing more than cabinet level executive departments , the scumbags in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that :

No warrant needed to obtain cellphone info

A federal appeals court ruled that cellphone data is a business record belonging to the provider and isn't protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Its hardly surprising that the conservative 5th circuit would be of the opinion private businesses own the records related to their business transactions. I don't see how that makes them Obama cabinet members.

There is NO difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" - they are both government supremacists.

.

 

[g5000]

To get the phone call records in question, one need only an ex parte court order. That's been the law since Reagan.

If the cops wanted to actually listen in to the phone conversations, then they would need a warrant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is correct. Just like your medical record belongs to the provider or hospital. You can have a copy of it, but it doesn't belong to you. Phone records have always been discoverable without a warrant. There is no difference just because you are using a cell phone.

Bullshit.

This is a transaction a contract between the cell provider and the individual. The government has no authority to impair the obligation of a contract.

.

You have it all wrong.

Read the law for yourself: 18 USC Chapter 206 - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Signed into law by Reagan himself.

As I said before: statutory authorization. This needs to go to SCOTUS.

 

[bendog]

Is there some conflict amongst the circuit courts on this? I didn't think so. I thought it pretty clear there's no rational expectation of privacy. Unless there's a difference in courts, it's a non-issue .... legally. Congress of course can change the law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Good, one step closer to exercising our Second Amendment rights to Restoring the Rule of Law. Let's hope the federal government accelerates it's suspension of the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

Bullshit.

This is a transaction a contract between the cell provider and the individual. The government has no authority to impair the obligation of a contract.

.

You have it all wrong.

Read the law for yourself: 18 USC Chapter 206 - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Signed into law by Reagan himself.

As I said before: statutory authorization. This needs to go to SCOTUS.

It already has. See post 12. Smith v. Maryland.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

 

[Contumacious]

Businesses OWN their own business records. The idea that a business cannot voluntarily surrender to the government its own business records is absurd.

The idea that businesses can be compelled by the government to produce records against the will of the customer is outright tyrannical.

When the federal government was more honest , only grand juries could subpoena records from third parties in order to investigate an specific crimes.

Now that we have become a police state government agencies can conduct fishing expeditions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have it all wrong.

Read the law for yourself: 18 USC Chapter 206 - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES

Signed into law by Reagan himself.

As I said before: statutory authorization. This needs to go to SCOTUS.

It already has. See post 12. Smith v. Maryland.

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

Smith v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then it needs to go again.

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly. if the cops think you brought up some product from Meh-hee-coe, they can track your past movements from what towers your cell phone automatically "pinged."

Its just another scam to bypass the 4th and 5th amendments.

.

The 4th amendment protects citizens from search and seizure of their own records without a warrant - it doesn't protect citizens from the search and seizures of OTHER citizens records.

If you commit a murder and leave the weapon in the bathroom of a bar - the government only needs to serve a warrant on the bar owner to obtain the weapon (or the bar owner can volunteer to turn it over) - they don't have to serve one on you. The 4th amendment only protects you from having records and property in your actual possession from being seized without your approval or a warrant - this includes property on your person, property in your home, in your car - it DOESN'T include property that belongs to others! Records of phone calls kept by phone companies in the normal course of business belong to the phone company.


If you buy fertilizer to build a bomb - the record that the seller of that fertilizer keeps can be turned over voluntarily by the seller or the government can obtain it with a warrant against the seller - they don't need a warrant against you.

Again, that only applies in cases where the government is investigating a specific crime and you are the suspect. It never allowed the government to bypass the 4A in order to conduct a fishing expeditions.

Unfortunately we no longer have Article III Courts.

.

 

[Contumacious]

How funny is it people are bitching about a court decision which is merely ratifying legislation which was signed into law by Reagan?

The Nazi references are particularly funny.

Wut?

And they are funny because

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In overturning Hughes' order, the appeals court in New Orleans said such data are a business record that belongs to the cellphone provider. It also said data collection by authorities does not have to meet a probable-cause standard as outlined under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure and requires a search warrant.

In court documents, prosecutors had argued that because such cellphone data are actually business records owned by the providers, customers have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Correct.

It is settled and accepted 4th Amendment jurisprudence, that there is no expectation of privacy with personal information provided willingly to a private third party, in this case a wireless phone company.