Print 88 comment(s) - last by eskimospy.. on Aug 29 at 6:26 PM

Administration is upset about Circuit Court ruling that prohibits warrantless smartphone searches

President Barack Obama's (D) Assistant Attorney General (AG), Mythili Raman, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) have filed a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to consider overriding a July decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which ruled that warrantless cell phone searches were a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The 1st Circuit Court sets precedent for Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.

The Obama administration has oft made the argument that the Fourth Amendment -- which protects a citizen's "houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" -- is "inconvenient" for law enforcement and should be pruned back to a much more limited form.  In its argument in favor of warrantless smartphone searches, the President's staff argues that notebooks, calendars, and pagers have all been found in past SCOTUS or Circuit Court rulings to be searchable without warrant (not eligible for Fourth Amendment protections).

In a post on academic law blog "The Volokh Conspiracy", George Washington University law school professor Orin Kerr, a prominent social libertarian points out a major flaw in the Obama administration's argument.
Smartphone search
The Obama administration is pushing for warrantless smartphone searches.
[Image Source: Cole Hayes]

He points out that the administration appears to have cherry-picked a case involving an older device (the case in question involved an classic "dumb" cell phone seized in a 2007 crack cocaine bust of a Mass. man).  He says that asking the court to consider a case with outdated information may be an attempt to lead them to an inaccurate conclusion.  He writes:

Given that the argument for treating cell phones differently from physical items hinges on the storage capacity and services available through smartphones, I think it would be very helpful for the Court to take a case involving a smartphone instead of a more primitive model. In recent years, smartphones quickly have become ubiquitous: About 35% of Americans owned one by May 2011, 46% owned one by February 2012, and 56% owned one by May 2013. (In case you’re wondering, 91% of Americans have cellphones, so about 61% of cell phones owned as of May 2013 are smart phones.) Reviewing a case with an earlier model phone would lead to a decision with facts that are atypical now and are getting more outdated every passing month.

He argues that it would be better for the SCOTUS to examine a separate case that law professor Stanford Univ. Jeff Fisher has asked the SCOTUS to consider -- Riley v. California.  That case involved a 2009 search of a customer's Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd (KSC:005930Instinct M800, an early smartphone.  The case involved officers searching through a suspected gang member's smartphone for videos, pictures, and address book -- all without getting a warrant for the search, a key step of Fourth Amendment due process that prevents abuse.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District declined to hear the Riley case, leaving SCOTUS as a potential route for a further appeal.

Sources: DOJ via The Washington Post [PDF], The Volokh Conspiracy

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Narcissist
By Nfarce on 8/23/2013 9:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying. In fact, I've said it MANY times: Obama is just carrying on WHAT Bush did, and THEN some. That's my entire point: not a PEEP from the liberal Obama voters now!

But let's clear up a minor little detail of yours I vehemently disagree with: Bush did NO SUCH THING as "kill" citizens on his own. People like you hurling that stupidity need to realize it also took DEMOCRATS in Congress to support Bush's policies. Don't get stuck on stupid.

RE: Narcissist
By FaaR on 8/24/2013 5:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
Bush started the wars. You seriously think a bunch of dems voting for them in congress changes that, or redirects responsibility, like two kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar, blaming each other "he did it too!"-style? How old exactly are you?

RE: Narcissist
By Nfarce on 8/26/2013 9:01:01 PM , Rating: 2

Bush could NOT have done it ALONE and WITHOUT DEMOCRATS, including those who sat on the freaking SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.

To say that Bush is to blame for the wars SOLELY is so typical of you Obamabot libtards. And I was probably learning how to fly airplanes when your mom was changing your diaper.

RE: Narcissist
By Piiman on 8/24/2013 9:10:16 AM , Rating: 2
"That's my entire point: not a PEEP from the liberal Obama voters now!"

Try listening then. Besides the fact that you have no clue who is commenting and who they voted for so your statment is pure BullSh*T

RE: Narcissist
By Nfarce on 8/26/2013 8:58:46 PM , Rating: 3
Go F6ck yourself sideways, hairPii. You can't REFUTE ANYTHING I've posted because it's FACT. Sit down STFU troglodyte.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki