



Supreme Court Rules Cell Phones Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant 249
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."
Double speak (Score:5, Interesting)
Well unless... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is great unless you're one of the 2/3 of people that live within 100 miles of the border in a "constitution exempt" zone.
Alito voted against the cops? (Score:5, Interesting)
During his confirmation hearings, Ted Kennedy noted that Sam Alito "never saw a police search he didn't like."
Alito wrote up his own opinion on this decision, not-quite agreeing with the rest of the bench, but still voting against this particular search. I guess there's a first for everything.