Phone decision a privacy win

The oft-divided United States Supreme Court got together for a rare occasion, and got it exactly right, in its unanimous decision that police cannot search the cellphone of someone they arrest without first obtaining a search warrant.

“The decision brings the Fourth Amendment into the digital age,” said Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford law professor who argued on behalf of a defendant who said the search violated his constitutional right to be free of unreasonable ­searches, the Washington Post reported. “By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today’s decision is itself revolutionary,” Steven R. Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the L.A. Times. “We have entered a new world. But our old values still apply and limit the government’s ability to rummage through intimate details of our private lives.”

Police organizations argued that the change would make their jobs more difficult and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who wrote the decision, did not disagree with that assessment. Roberts said he “cannot deny” that the decision will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime, The Washington Post reported. “Privacy comes at a cost,” Roberts wrote.

On the other hand, obtaining a warrant is not much of a hardship for law enforcement, and upholding the Fourth Amendment shouldn’t be blamed for hindering law enforcement’s ability to “combat crime.”

The technology that makes a cellphone less of a phone and more of a computer holding all sorts of personal information, and therefore protected from search during an arrest, is also the technology that has made crime-fighting (and spying) easier: When legally warranted, warrants can be obtained to use GPS and other tracking devices on suspects’ cars; warrants can be obtained to bug homes, computers and smartphones, and all the other technological tricks available to both the good and bad guys. But as the good guys, police need to take that extra step to protect a citizen’s privacy. (Additionally, the nature of technology makes it difficult for a suspect to truly “delete” any information the police might be seeking before a warrant arrives.)

Sure, without the U.S. Constitution, crime-fighting would be incredibly “easy.” But we are not one of those countries. (Legal analysts say the ruling may also apply to some of the NSA’s phone-data gathering.)

With its ruling, the Supreme Court reassured citizens, and put law enforcement on notice, that new technology cannot be allowed to alter our historic commitment to the right of privacy, and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures.

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Jan. 20

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Help community colleges meet job training needs

Lost in the focus on K-12 school funding, have been the needs of community and technical colleges.

Schwab: The sentiment, not the word, is problem with Trump

Who shows more love for America: Those who seek to come here or the man who derides them?

Bravo to Port of Everett for employing veterans, reservists

Thank you to Everett for being a place a veteran such as… Continue reading

Thanks for gifts for youths with Cocoon House

Cocoon House would like to thank the community for its incredible generosity… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Friday, Jan. 19

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Eminent domain isn’t popular, but it’s fair

Everett Public Schools’ condemnation process assures fairness for property owners and taxpayers.

Ignatius: How military trains to let others do the fighting

The struggle for the U.S. military has been to accept letting other nations fight their own battles.

Milbank: Trump’s fine, but his Trumpism may be contagious

Trump may be in ‘excellent’ health, but has the White House doctor contracted his hyperbolic style.

Most Read