Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant

New submitter CarlThansk (3713681) writes The courts have long debated on if cell phones can be searched during an arrest without a warrant. Today, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected (PDF) from routine inspection." Phones may still be searched under limited circumstances (imminent threats), but this looks like a clear win for privacy. Quoting the decision: "We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost."

unanimously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this imposter pretending to be Clarence Thomas?

Re:Alito voted against the cops?

[operagost]

Because Ted Kennedy was a straight-shooting guy who would never denigrate anyone, even if they were from the opposing party.

Re:FP

[funwithBSD]

However, in this case, the Supreme Court was 8-1, and the opinion amounted to "WTF is wrong with you? Of course you need a warrant, asshat!"