# Warrantless cell phone searches unanimously held unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 25, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634 "2014-06-25T18:48:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/1 "2014-06-25T18:48:33Z")
[New York Times link here.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=BannerSubHedSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=lede-package&WT.nav=lede-package&_r=0) > [@](#): > > Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected from routine inspection. > > The old rules, Chief Justice Roberts said, cannot be applied to “modern cellphones, 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.” I was hoping it would go this way, and pleasantly surprised it was a unanimous decision. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/2 "2014-06-25T20:17:59Z")
In their comment about the police trying to access information before it is destroyed, I could see a need to start creating laws to allow freezes on peoples accounts (facebook, twitter, voice messages, etc). I.e., the person still has access but can’t delete anything for 48 hours, while the police are seeking a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/3 "2014-06-25T20:36:59Z")
Glad it was unanimous as well ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2014, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/4 "2014-06-25T22:23:27Z")
The NSA has all that data on its servers anyway. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/5 "2014-06-26T14:57:57Z")
Frankly, I wish they’d gone a bit farther and receded from the “search incident to arrest” doctrine slightly. But this will do. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/6 "2014-06-26T15:17:45Z")
Are the built in security features of modern smartphones sufficient to prevent unwanted intrusion, even by police with a warrant? Can a person be compelled to reveal a password beyond being held in contempt? This would be similar to a safe combination, but with a physical safe they can always be defeated with time. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/7 "2014-06-26T15:34:40Z")
A phone’s security can always be defeated with time, too. Except possibly by PDs that are out in the sticks and have limited technical capabilities. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/8 "2014-06-26T15:42:11Z")
The opinion contemplates remote deletion of data, and says that this is uncommon, and even if it were, that it could be prevented by isolating the device from remote signals. I imagine some kind of Faraday box. Then, I think you can have something like a dead man’s switch on your phone - if you don’t enter something based on some cadence it automatically erases everything that is sensitive. This can be done without remove activation. You could defeat battery removal with a built in backup that is impossible to remove just for this purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/9 "2014-06-26T16:16:47Z")
Sure. But allowing warrantless searches of everyone’s phone to defeat technology that might be available to .1% of criminal suspects is overdoing it a bit. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/10 "2014-06-26T16:18:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > [New York Times link here.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privacy.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=BannerSubHedSumLargeMedia&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=lede-package&WT.nav=lede-package&_r=0) I was hoping it would go this way, and pleasantly surprised it was a unanimous decision. The interesting question is what the ruling portends for similar, but not quite identical, questions raised by electronic surveillance. > [@Bone](#): > > The opinion contemplates remote deletion of data, and says that this is uncommon, and even if it were, that it could be prevented by isolating the device from remote signals. I imagine some kind of Faraday box. > > Then, I think you can have something like a dead man’s switch on your phone - if you don’t enter something based on some cadence it automatically erases everything that is sensitive. This can be done without remove activation. You could defeat battery removal with a built in backup that is impossible to remove just for this purpose. It would probably be simpler to just encrypt everything – someone with physical access to the phone could still get the data but couldn’t interpret it without your cooperation. ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/11 "2014-06-26T17:36:20Z")
Alito filed a separate opinion - concurring in part and in the judgement. As far as I can tell, he wanted to let everyone know that he doesn’t like giving this protection to cell phone data, but that he can’t figure out a better solution, and that he looks forward to endorsing legislation that finds a better excuse to expand police power in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/12 "2014-06-26T17:41:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure. But allowing warrantless searches of everyone’s phone to defeat technology that might be available to .1% of criminal suspects is overdoing it a bit. Oh - I’m totally against the warrantless search and agree with the ruling. Just thinking of how things could change in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warrantless-cell-phone-searches-unanimously-held-unconstitutional/691634/13 "2014-06-26T18:29:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The opinion contemplates remote deletion of data, and says that this is uncommon, and even if it were, that it could be prevented by isolating the device from remote signals. I imagine some kind of Faraday box. Much of the data “on our phone” isn’t on our phone, and that shall become the case to an even greater extent with time. So while I thought of this suggestion, I don’t think it will be very useful.