The Supreme Court invalidates warrantless cell phone searches

[thewayne]

There's a lot going on here, which is why I didn't post about it as soon as it became news. First, the good news. The police must now usually get a search warrant to search the phone of a person whom they arrest. There are a couple of exceptions, such as fear of evidence being remotely deleted or exigent circumstances, like if you're a suspect

Comments

[silveradept]

I find it interesting how much the Court resists technology, despite having to deal with its implications in cases every day now. It's seriously hampering a lot of things, copyrights among them, but also this problem with government digital intrusion.

[thewayne]

When a phrase as common as 'patent troll' is unknown to most of the Court, then you know there's a problem.

We're likely to see some retirements over the next five years, hopefully the POTUS will nominate some younger, more tech-savvy justices. We've seen some improvement in the tech literacy of the Congress, maybe it'll trickle up.

[silveradept]

I think POTUS will try, but it's unlikely anything will get through unless the Senate and the POTUS are aligned, which I don't see happening any time soon, unless the public gets well and truly fed up with the do-nothings to the point where they elect lots of Dems to office.

[thewayne]

A lot will hinge on the November elections as to how the makeup of the Senate changes. I doubt seriously that the RNC will gain control of it, but stranger things have happened. The big question is the 60 vote filibuster: I don't remember if the change to the filibuster rules included SCOTUS appointees, I remember there was a specific exception where the 60 votes could be required.