![]() First, it notes that a big part of the reasoning that allowed the search of physical containers was to make sure there weren’t any dangerous weapons. The Court recognizes that existing precedent allows for searches of physical containers, but thankfully declines to accept the government’s argument that searching digital devices is the same thing. This ruling is likely to become a very key one in a number of other upcoming questions about where the 4th Amendment applies to new technologies. In short, the Supreme Court actually believes in the 4th Amendment. We had significant problems with the government’s arguments in defending such warrantless searches and so did the Supreme Court, which has made it clear that police cannot search phones without a warrant. ![]() As we’ve discussed, both the Riley and Wurie cases basically deal with the same issue, though one (Riley) involves a smartphone, while the other (Wurie) is about a more old-fashioned flip phone. ![]() Wed, Jun 25th 2014 10:53am - Mike Masnickįollowing this morning’s disappointing Aereo ruling, the Supreme Court also released its ruling in the Riley/Wurie cases that examine whether or not the police can search through your mobile phone without a warrant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |