A Major Victory for Privacy Rights

I guess I just don't get it. I never have anything to hide, so who cares if someone wants to get my exact whereabouts for the past week, month or year? It wouldn't bother me in the least. Let them have at it! So what Bob's post tells me is a terrrorist, murderer, rapist, criminals of any kind can hide their whereabouts now from law enforcement. Is this really a good thing??

@Ron@Brian......Right on...No wonder the rest of the world views the USA as a country of outlaws protected by thieves in power.

I agree with Ron and Brian. This is only going to impede law enforcement. The time that may be wasted obtaining a warrant while on the trail of a suspect could be put to better use--like trying to track the person down via phone activity. Sorry, but if someone has nothing to hide this should not be an issue.

Authorities can track my activities at any time. This world is becoming more dangerous and we need to use the tools at our disposal as quickly as we can. Would supporters of this new ruling agree if they are on the trail of suspected terrorists?

All it takes is a Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover or any other power-hungry government official willing and able to bend the law to their own purposes. As for me, I want the full protection of the law for me and mine. Now and forever.

Bob,
Recently here in Punta Gorda, FL there was an article by a real estate agent who was approached by an insurance company claiming that he had more drivers on his insurance than he claimed. They said knew because he regularly received mail at his address for a 'Mr. Jones' and so OBVIOUSLY Mr. Jones MUST be living at that address! (No, Mr. Jones was out of town and asked his real estate agent to temporally receive and forward his mail).

He did a bit of investigating and found that the USPS - that's right - the UNITED STATES POST OFFICE sells to anyone who pays for it a daily listing of your incoming mail! No kidding!

That includes ALL mail addressed to you! From doctors, lawyers, hospitals, insurance companies, etc., etc. Cool, huh?

Talk about an invasion of privacy! All done by an overarching government 'protecting' you and not letting the little ol' Fourth A get in the way of doing so.

Did you know that I (or anyone) CAN BUY from the USPS a listing of your incoming mail? Thought not.

- L -

And without the cell phone evidence, would Carpenter still be out leading his gang of armed robbers? And possibly, by this time, leaving a few bodies behind? Way to go ACLU! Thank you for "protecting" me.

So sad to see how many here completely fail to understand the necessity of the 4th Amendment and how important it is to our very freedom.

Do you really trust the people that would have access to this information not to misuse it? Or, have we become a nation so fearful for our safety that we are willing to trade away our freedoms?

Don't know which is the more frightening,. ...Sigh!

I agree with the decision made by the Supreme Court. For those that say that law enforcement will be hampered and terrorists and criminals will have free rein to carry out their plans, I ask "When did we become a nation of Chicken Littles?".
Yes, there are bad people out there. Ceding power to the government to become more intrusive in our private affairs will lead to more serious consequences down the road. I, for one, do not support trading liberty for security.

One thing that most of you who are griping about this decision are ignoring, is that the Supremes did not say this data was completely out-of-bounds. It just requires a warrant -- listing what they are looking for and what legitimate reasons they have for getting it. The police can still get this information, they just need to justify it before a judge, the same way they have to justify it if they tap your phone.

It's an old question: Is it more important to catch this crook, this time, or protect the principles that supposedly protect the public.
To me it's clear: you have to protect the principle first, because that has far more applicability than a single case and supersedes it in importance. Better a crook or two should escape than live in a police state, in which you'd have to protect yourself from police as well as criminals.
If you disagree you might as well say racists and Nazis (and others you may disagree with) have no right to free speech or the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights because they are BAD PEOPLE.
American cops violate these principles all the time. It is to the interest of every honest person out there to pull them up short. Even if it never comes to your being involved. And even if as a result of upholding the principle someone you know damn well is a crook is going to go free.
Please observe: if crooks go free it is only because the authorities have failed to bring to bear good evidence that has been fairly obtained. They should put the donuts away, get off their ass and go find hard evidence.
I am sick of hearing cops whining about "the system" coddling criminals when the whole thing boils down to their laziness.
The Bill of Rights (including the Fifth Amendment) was put there for a purpose. The founding fathers would rather put up with a few criminals escaping justice than having to fight against your own government. They knew very well what that was like. And that you can't have it both ways.

Living in the UK, this decision doesn't directly affect me - but the ramifications might well be significant. Facebook, ebay, PayPal, and Google, to name but a few, have a major presence in the USA, but their subscribers are worldwide. It's good to know that the various law enforcement agencies in the US may well now be restricted from digging into anyone's online presence without lawful authority.
And for those who think it will lead to criminals being given greater freedom, it's really just an extension of the wiretap regulations which need probable cause and a court order to be enacted. Why should cellphone locations and online traffic be any different?

you law-abiding rednecks may not have anything to hide, but the government sure as hell does.
here on planet earth, where i live, the government perpetrates crimes against innocent individuals all the time. the only difference is, they do it with absolute impunity.
sorry to hear that you guys are so offended at the rule of law. maybe that's why we have law to begin with.

At first, I thought that the SCOTUS was wrong, in their decision. Then, I thought about long and hard. I realized that law enforcement MUST get a warrant to search your house. . .And that makes total sense. Therefore, searching one's cell phone needs to have a warrant, too.

When, most people think this through, they will come to realize that the 4th Amendment is for all of our protection and the cell phone is just part of our properties.

Now, law enforcement must get a search warrant from a judge, showing probable cause, to search anyone's cell phone and it honestly is no different than requesting a search warrant for your home.

Law enforcement has made some really bad mistakes when they have forcibly entered into a home, looking for contraband, guns, drugs and etc.. The worst of it, is that they frequently do not even apologize when they have done their damage to the wrong house! Yes, they have search warrants when this happens.

This happens because they don't really get the right information, before getting the search warrant. Sometimes, law enforcement is just to anxious to do what they want to do and do not check out their facts properly.

Bad things will still happen, but obtaining search warrants from Judges, for cell phones is really a good thing in the long run.

Good or bad it's the law according to the 4th Amendmendment...

Good job by the SC on this one. You only need to go back to the initial passing of the Patriot Act to find misuse of search and seizure. Bush's AG Ashcroft began subpoenaing records of patients who had abortions from doctors. How did those requests protect us from terrorists?

John, Perhaps it is only one's age from conception that allows abortionists to be labeled as terrorists.

I, too, have nothing to hide, but I firmly believe this to be a good decision. Is obtaining a search warrant so hard? (I don't know, but I don't suspect that it would be in such a case of wanting to determine a persons whereabouts over an extended time.) I am sure that with today's technology, the police wouldn't even has to wipe the chocolate glazing off of his fingers. He could just look at this phone and say, "Google, call Judge Judy."

Is the government not to be trusted? How can one think this in the face of all the good the civil asset forfeiture has done? And if that it a problem you,then certainly some Native Americans can verify the government's trustworthiness.

I'd better quit before I offend everyone. I will close with another big THANK YOU to Bob. I hope that you keep up the good work.

don't think you pro government people realize just what you are being protected from in the 4th amend. Illegal search and seizure extends to you as a person so if you give up that protection you can be arrested and detained indiscriminately.

It dismays me to see so many commenters here willing to surrender their privacy.
Do they not understand that surrendering privacy surrenders liberty?
Do they not understand that privacy is a defense against tyranny?
Do they not understand how thin is the line between seizure of private knowledge and seizure of persons?
To you who would surrender your privacy, I say visit a concentration camp and discover how the victims were found.

Bob, I am relying on your report rather than on the decision itself. But if Roberts CJS ruled as he appears to have done, the decision should be welcomed. I am less impressed with the good faith exception argument for admitting the evidence which convicted Carpenter but note that this argument cannot be raised in another case now that the decision is law. All in all, this is a good result.

SC ruling or not . . . I only use burner phones for EVERYTHING.