Just got this news prompt in.
SCOTUS has ruled on two cases this morning. One against a company called Aereo concerning internet broadcasting that I'll let NBC's Pete Williams explain, but basically Aereo can no longer broadcast to its customers over the air Television. NBC sued for copyright infringement and won.
Cell phones. The court ruled that the police can not search a persons cell phone without a search warrant for the phone.
It used to be that the police could search most anything when they make an arrest. This ruling changed that.
The case goes back five years with man named David Leon Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego five years ago for driving with an expired license. When police found guns in his car, they arrested him for carrying concealed weapons. Police also searched his cell phone and found evidence indicating he may have been involved in other illegal activities.
Now in an 8 to 1 decision the court ruled that since there is so much personal information on cell phones, a warrant is required for a search. There may be certain emergency exceptions, but that is the general rule for now
(short ad - sorry)
Link to NBC's cell phone written story: http://www.nbcnews.com/...
Link to NBC's Pete Williams video: http://www.msnbc.com/...
Link to NBC old style video embed of story: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/...
This ruling being a strong 8 to 1 decision, seems like this may mark a turning point for future rulings on privacy.
Update and a h/t to both misslegalbeagle & VClib for the ruling correction: http://www.scotusblog.com/... with the case opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/...
decision is 9 to 0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, I missed this earlier report from Joan McCarter: Supreme Court: Police cell phone searches require warrants