If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   In "blind squirrel finds a nut" news, the Supreme Court decides 9-0 that cell phones are "effects" and you kinda need a warrant before searching them   (cbsnews.com) divider line 172
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

4415 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2014 at 1:01 PM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-25 11:54:41 AM
Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.
 
2014-06-25 11:56:52 AM
Also, why not the one with people actually commenting on it?

Anyway, whatever. I'll post this here, since it's one of the more amusing quotes out of SCOTUS in recent memory:

"These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Anyway, nice to see a 9-0 win for the 4th Amendment. Not a small holding, either.
 
2014-06-25 11:58:12 AM

silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.


Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.
 
2014-06-25 12:08:25 PM
They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.
 
2014-06-25 12:15:01 PM

silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.


Well, there's an MSNBC link that was red lit down below. The author of it couldn't tell the difference between a concurrence and a dissent, but I guess it's not Buzzfeed.
 
2014-06-25 12:23:51 PM

BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.


Getting caught with contraband and avoiding jail can be seen as a win by many criminals.
 
2014-06-25 12:30:53 PM

R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.

Getting caught with contraband and avoiding jail can be seen as a win by many criminals.


not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...
 
2014-06-25 12:41:10 PM

BravadoGT: R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.

Getting caught with contraband and avoiding jail can be seen as a win by many criminals.

not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...


That scenario will never be my problem, nor do I sympathize with anyone with that particular problem.
 
2014-06-25 12:43:26 PM

R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.

Getting caught with contraband and avoiding jail can be seen as a win by many criminals.

not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...

That scenario will never be my problem, nor do I sympathize with anyone with that particular problem.


Until your dealer is killed and the new guy jacks up your price.
 
2014-06-25 12:44:21 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: R.A.Danny: BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.

Getting caught with contraband and avoiding jail can be seen as a win by many criminals.

not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...

That scenario will never be my problem, nor do I sympathize with anyone with that particular problem.

Until your dealer is killed and the new guy jacks up your price.


There's always another discount liquor store somewhere.
 
2014-06-25 12:52:11 PM

BravadoGT: not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...


www.dmeb2.com

Just say we all get boarded sometimes. I'm sure he'll understand.
 
2014-06-25 12:53:58 PM
Of course this doesn't apply to Customs and Immigration and their 100 mile "Constitution-free" zones that encompass America.
 
2014-06-25 12:54:30 PM

nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.


Besides which, haven't you heard?  The people at scotusblog aren't "professional journalists".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309324/-Traditional-media- ru les-bloggers-not-journalists-denies-scotusblog-s-Lyle-press-credential
 
2014-06-25 12:55:20 PM

nmrsnr: BravadoGT: not when the dope they found wasn't technically "yours" and now you have to explain where it went...

[www.dmeb2.com image 249x357]

Just say we all get boarded sometimes. I'm sure he'll understand.


Perhaps you're right!   The bosses do have their soft side....

blogmytv.com
 
2014-06-25 12:55:55 PM
Unless you are the NSA.
Bulk data collection still 100% legal.
 
2014-06-25 01:01:14 PM
Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?
 
2014-06-25 01:04:35 PM

nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.


Wall Street Journal had an article up 90 mins ago...
 
2014-06-25 01:05:29 PM

dittybopper: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Besides which, haven't you heard?  The people at scotusblog aren't "professional journalists".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309324/-Traditional-media- ru les-bloggers-not-journalists-denies-scotusblog-s-Lyle-press-credential


DailyKos misrepresenting facts? You dont say. There are limited number of media passes. Yes Scotusblog should have a pass, no their denial does not mean they are not journalists.
 
2014-06-25 01:05:31 PM
No Aereo thread yet?
 
2014-06-25 01:05:51 PM

netizencain: Of course this doesn't apply to Customs and Immigration and their 100 mile "Constitution-free" zones that encompass America.


Have never understood why cell phone use is forbidden in the customs area.
 
2014-06-25 01:06:28 PM

DamnYankees: Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?


I have a few cop buddies that agree with this ruling. It's (some of) the lawmakers that don't, and most of those nitwits are lawyers.
 
2014-06-25 01:06:39 PM
If you have to swipe the little circle from the bottom of the screen to the middle to unlock it, then open up an app or two, and then navigate to whatever it is you think you might be interested in, then you sure as shiat can't claim that it was in plain sight.
 
2014-06-25 01:06:46 PM

HempHead: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Wall Street Journal had an article up 90 mins ago...


Fark doesnt allow wsj due to pay wall. Yet they allow latimes and nytimes... odd.
 
2014-06-25 01:06:49 PM

BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.


The FBI uses "clean teams" to come in after the fact and redo the investigation without all the constitutional violations.  Their reports are what gets submitted, and all the evidence goes in.  It's in the FBI training manual.
 
2014-06-25 01:07:05 PM

BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.


If you're stupid enough to not have a passcode on your phone, I'm not sure I would have much sympathy for you if you have something incriminating on it...

I generally have one on mine, but I rarely do anything to really attract the wrong kind of attention anyways, NTTAWWT...
 
2014-06-25 01:07:25 PM

R.A.Danny: DamnYankees: Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?

I have a few cop buddies that agree with this ruling. It's (some of) the lawmakers that don't, and most of those nitwits are lawyers.


Them being lawyers doesn't really tell you anything about whether they would support or oppose a given policy.
 
2014-06-25 01:08:11 PM

dittybopper: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Besides which, haven't you heard?  The people at scotusblog aren't "professional journalists".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309324/-Traditional-media- ru les-bloggers-not-journalists-denies-scotusblog-s-Lyle-press-credential


Oh yeah that was absolutely BS. Scotusblog is the only reliable source covering the SC.
 
2014-06-25 01:08:44 PM

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: DamnYankees: Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?

I have a few cop buddies that agree with this ruling. It's (some of) the lawmakers that don't, and most of those nitwits are lawyers.

Them being lawyers doesn't really tell you anything about whether they would support or oppose a given policy.


It would suggest a knowledge and respect for the law though.
 
2014-06-25 01:09:04 PM
The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

Peachy. Thanks, Professor Constitution.
 
2014-06-25 01:09:29 PM
Btw. The number of unanimous or unanimous decisions would make fark liberals heads explode. It goes contrary to their belief that the USSC is a right wing shill.

Also of note. It was liberals who decided to side with big corporations by judicially rewriting copyright law in the Aero decision. Thought that was note worthy as well.
 
2014-06-25 01:09:34 PM

cptjeff: Also, why not the one with people actually commenting on it?

Anyway, whatever. I'll post this here, since it's one of the more amusing quotes out of SCOTUS in recent memory:

"These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Anyway, nice to see a 9-0 win for the 4th Amendment. Not a small holding, either.


I read the briefs and felt that the legal argument was crystal clear that a person's cell phone was the modern equivalent of papers and effect (how could it NOT be?)  but that said I was not entirely sanguine about the current Scotus ruling that way and figured it would be 5-4 or 6-3 with Clarence Thomas and Alito at least in strong dissent.  VERY pleased to see 9-0
 
2014-06-25 01:09:38 PM

BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.


What kind of contraband are they going to discover on your cell phone?  Are they going to confiscate that picture of a marijuana plant you took?
 
2014-06-25 01:10:05 PM

cptjeff: the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."


they are. I can always tell who has their head up their ass by seeing who is staring at one.
 
2014-06-25 01:10:19 PM

HempHead: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Wall Street Journal had an article up 90 mins ago...


Thats nice. You should have submitted it.
 
2014-06-25 01:10:19 PM
9-0?

And it's a good ruling, one that maintains the rights of the people?

Amazing.
 
2014-06-25 01:10:51 PM

DamnYankees: Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?


Yes but 9-0 is truly amazing on any point that got that far.  Given the diversity of opinion on the court, it is amazing to have something this obvious get that far and then even more amazing that they all agree.  Just think about that.  Sotomayor and Thomas AGREE on something involving civil liberties.
 
2014-06-25 01:10:59 PM

R.A.Danny: It would suggest a knowledge and respect for the law though.


Not really. Most lawyers only know about their very specific area of law. My knowledge of constitutional issues, for example, comes entirely from my interest in politics and history, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my job as a lawyer other than random crap I remember from my first year law school class. Being a "lawyer" is just way too broad a profession to impute any sort of knowledge about any specific issue.
 
2014-06-25 01:11:45 PM

MyRandomName: HempHead: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Wall Street Journal had an article up 90 mins ago...

Fark doesnt allow wsj due to pay wall. Yet they allow latimes and nytimes... odd.


Did not know that.
 
2014-06-25 01:11:51 PM

brandent: Yes but 9-0 is truly amazing on any point that got that far.  Given the diversity of opinion on the court, it is amazing to have something this obvious get that far and then even more amazing that they all agree.  Just think about that.  Sotomayor and Thomas AGREE on something involving civil liberties.


Not really. Every justice agrees with every other justice at least 60% of the time. IOW, in most cases their decisions are overwhelming.
 
2014-06-25 01:12:45 PM

MyRandomName: dittybopper: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Besides which, haven't you heard?  The people at scotusblog aren't "professional journalists".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309324/-Traditional-media- ru les-bloggers-not-journalists-denies-scotusblog-s-Lyle-press-credential

DailyKos misrepresenting facts? You dont say. There are limited number of media passes. Yes Scotusblog should have a pass, no their denial does not mean they are not journalists.


Actually the credentials committee did deny them on the basis that they are not legit journalists.    The owner of Scotusblog is a practicing lawyer and he doesn't allow posts on cases he has involvement on or ones that may affect his interests.  The credentials committee therefore (rightly i think) decided they blog was therefore not sufficient editorially independent to be a real news source and not a house organ of the lawyer
 
2014-06-25 01:13:32 PM

DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: It would suggest a knowledge and respect for the law though.

Not really. Most lawyers only know about their very specific area of law. My knowledge of constitutional issues, for example, comes entirely from my interest in politics and history, and has nothing whatsoever to do with my job as a lawyer other than random crap I remember from my first year law school class. Being a "lawyer" is just way too broad a profession to impute any sort of knowledge about any specific issue.


That's a damn shame. Some of this stuff is plain common sense to us GED lawyers. So much so that one would almost suspect malfeasance.
 
2014-06-25 01:14:10 PM

silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.


Sigh. The Scotus Blog one about BIE in your camera roll being safe is mine. Should've gone the "favorite website" route instead. I'll never learn...
 
2014-06-25 01:15:13 PM

MyRandomName: DailyKos misrepresenting facts? You dont say. There are limited number of media passes. Yes Scotusblog should have a pass, no their denial does not mean they are not journalists.


Just the most recent link Google pulled up.  I've been watching that for a while, as I'm a fan of scotusblog, at least, I'm a fan when there is a case that piques my interest.
 
2014-06-25 01:15:23 PM
Of course now cops will use Stingray to illegally tap into your phone, and they have the Feds backing them up.
 
2014-06-25 01:16:21 PM
9-0.... some people here have got some crow to eat.
 
2014-06-25 01:16:35 PM
If you're not doing anything wrong, why on earth would you have any objection to the cops taking a quick peek at your phone?

/I got nuthin' to hide.
 
2014-06-25 01:16:44 PM
In fairness, it's really an 8.5 - .5 decision. Alito concurs in the judgment but would allow cops to search phones for things they can search for elsewhere on a person like photographs or notes.

So he still hasn't met a criminal case in which he fully disagrees with law enforcement. But I'll give him credit, it's the first time I've seen him vote against them at all.
 
2014-06-25 01:19:07 PM

Karac: BravadoGT: They're still going to search your phone.  It's just now they can't use the evidence in court.   If they use your phone and use it to discover, contraband, for example--they're still going to go grab your contraband.   Even when a search is illegal--you don't get your contraband back.

Cops routinely ignore search laws just to get to your contraband.   Even if they can't get the charges to stick in court--they put you in jail for night and got your stash too.  That's a "win" in many of their books.

What kind of contraband are they going to discover on your cell phone?  Are they going to confiscate that picture of a marijuana plant you took?


you'd be surprised how many pictures these idiots take of dope.   And now many phones geotag photos.
 
2014-06-25 01:19:50 PM

DamnYankees: Here's the question - is there a single person on Fark who disagrees with this ruling? Hell, is there a single person not in law enforcement who does?


People who have nothing to hide?
 
2014-06-25 01:20:10 PM

Magorn: MyRandomName: dittybopper: nmrsnr: silo123j: Buzzfeed? Really?

why not scotusblog? NPR?

Oh, right. Beer money.

Actually, it was because Scotusblog only linked to the PDF decision, and Buzzfeed was the first article which had a summary. I tried CNN and NPR, then Google news, and Buzzfeed came up first.

/Subby, clearly.

Besides which, haven't you heard?  The people at scotusblog aren't "professional journalists".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/24/1309324/-Traditional-media- ru les-bloggers-not-journalists-denies-scotusblog-s-Lyle-press-credential

DailyKos misrepresenting facts? You dont say. There are limited number of media passes. Yes Scotusblog should have a pass, no their denial does not mean they are not journalists.

Actually the credentials committee did deny them on the basis that they are not legit journalists.    The owner of Scotusblog is a practicing lawyer and he doesn't allow posts on cases he has involvement on or ones that may affect his interests.  The credentials committee therefore (rightly i think) decided they blog was therefore not sufficient editorially independent to be a real news source and not a house organ of the lawyer


Completely not true. He doesn't allow his paid staff to write about his cases, since it could be seen as a conflict of interest. Any time his firm is involved, he gets outside writers to cover it.

The decision is complete bull shiat.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report