This morning the Supreme Court of the United States (or SCOTUS for short) concluded it's 2013-14 term and, in holding with tradition, saved its most controversial rulings for the last day. The Court handed down decisions on several important issues including: warrentless searches of cell phones, internet TV, and the power of President Obama to make appointments to executive agencies without congressional approval. In each of these decisions, the court has set meaningful precedent that will impact the future of our country, the role of government in Americans' lives, and possibly the 2014 congressional midterm elections.
Because each case is long I am including a list of several articles on each one to help us better understand the impact these rulings will have. I urge you to look at each of the cases the Court has ruled on, however, you only need to write your comment on one of the decisions made by the court (of course I would welcome anyone who wants to comment on more than one!) Also, if any of these items interest you, you are welcome to read more than just what I post below!
Riley v. California
Get a warrant! Today’s cellphone privacy decision in Plain English
Cellphone Ruling Could Alter Police Methods, Experts Say
American Broadcasting Companies v. Aero
How copyright law blocks cheap Internet TV: In Plain English
Aero Loses at Supreme Court, in Victory for TV Broadcasters
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English
Justices’ Decision Opens Fresh Debate on Limits of Presidential Power
General Questions for Discussion
** NOTE** There are too many cases for me give you specific questions, so instead here are some general questions to help you decipher the Court's rulings in these momentous cases.
What issues were at bar in these cases? (Think executive vs congressional power, privacy rights, etc)
What precedents were set by these rulings?
What will will they mean for you?
How is federal power impacted by these rulings?
How can/will the Obama administration and/or Congress react?
What does this mean for President Obama's recess appointments?
What does this ruling tell us about the make-up of the Supreme Court? (Liberal v. Conservative)
What insights could this give us on the upcoming midterm elections?
The decision made by Congress in the Riley v. California case ensures the protection of Americans’ privacy rights. Congress decided that once the police arrest a person, the person’s cellphone can be confiscated, but cannot be searched by police without a warrant. Advancements in technology have allowed people to carry all types of information about their personal lives on their phone. Some people may have even more information about themselves stored on their phone than they have in their homes. These rulings now force the police to first get a warrant to go through a person’s phone. Though this makes the job of police enforcements more difficult and time consuming, it provides people with a sense of privacy and protection. This ruling certainly does not prevent evidence found on cell phones from being used; it just ensures that the police have enough justifiable reasoning to search a person’s phone. This issue may be brought up again at some point in the future and may be debated further possibly ending in a different result. Obama and Congress can reconsider all of the factors of this ruling and decide that cell phones shouldn’t require warrants to be searched. This ruling also shows that the Supreme Court has much more power than it is sometimes credited. Occasionally, it seems as though all decisions are made by President Obama, but that is not the case. Since the Justice System of our country will be dealing with cases that include this new ruling, it makes the most sense for the final decision to have been declared by them. Since this ruling had some debate before a final decision was reached, it is possible that the topic of warrants for cell phones will be seen again.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDuring, the Riley V California case, the Supreme Court came to the decision that police officers are not allowed to go through the digital contents of an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant. Police officers are still able to confiscate a phone to see if it can be used as weapon, to ensure that they are not in any danger from that regard. Also, when time is critical in a case such as a kidnapping, Officers have the ability to search phones without a warrant because the Supreme Court can overrule that. Allowing them to overrule situations like this will make it harder for this new law to have any negative impact on a case. While, this could potentially make it harder for Officers to do their job, it’s important to have made this decision because the privacy of our citizens is very important and will always come at a cost. Overall, I love this decision made by the Supreme Court. Cell phones hold a tremendous amount of information and could hold a lot of data that you don’t necessarily want anyone else to see. This decision to ensure privacy to people who are arrested is a great one because there is a line that just shouldn’t be crossed when invading other people’s privacy, especially if the Officer doesn’t have a warrant. With privacy being a current issue throughout the United States, such as the Domestic Surveillance Program, it’s great to see us make a step like this that can help keep everyone’s personal information less accessible to the Government and other Authorities. Overall, I believe this ruling is for the best and will make our citizens feel more protected and safe when dealing with arrests and invasions of privacy.
When the Supreme Court was confronted with the Riley V California case they came to the decision that, when making an arrest, officers need to have a warrant to be able to search an arrestee's cellphone. Those against this ruling say that this will make an officer's job more difficult, which is true. However, it is not that great of a loss because with today's technology, the officers can simply send an email or make a call in order to get the warrant that is needed. Also, in extreme cases such as a bomb threat or a kidnapping where there is a crucial, small amount of time to solve the case, a warrant is not necessary and, finally, it will cause the start of officers asking for consent to search the criminal's cellphone which many will agree to. Therefore, this new ruling is not as badly impacting the world of crime solving as it seems. Not only this, but when it comes to precedents for future cases, it sends the message that the privacy of one's digital data is something that needs to be respected because with technology increasing one can have more information about themselves on their phone or computer than in their entire house. This will help with many future cases that have the privacy of American citizens' cellphones in question. This affects me and the federal government together because both I and politicians of our nation wish our personal information to be kept private and hopefully this new ruling will make all of our date less easy to access. This also shows that the majority of the Supreme Court is liberal and for future elections they must also agree that privacy of one's personal information is crucial in order to be in favor with the court. All in all, I personally believe that this ruling does not have any major negative affect on the work of police and should be a positive precedent when it comes to our privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe Riley vs. California case is very interesting. This was a case of fourth amendment rights vs. the power of the police force. The ruling on this case was that the police need a warrant in order to search the digital contents of cell phones. However, the police can check to make sure the cell phone is not a weapon. This ruling will make it a little bit harder for the police to search the digital contents of cell phones, however, this is by all means not a bad thing. Technology is advancing a lot, which makes it very easy for the police to get a warrant to search cell phones. Some people will argue that evidence could be destroyed if police can't search the cell phones when they have the chance, however this rarely every happens. This ruling helps to protect our privacy rights a lot which helps to remind America of the Founding Fathers' deep hatred for limitless searches. This ruling may also affect the NSA because they now need warrants to search all the cell phones in the US. This ruling also tells America that the Supreme court likes privacy rights and regular fourth amendment rights. I personally approve of this ruling because not only does it protect privacy rights and the fourth amendment rights, but it doesn't have too big of an affect on the police. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." This ruling helped America take another step towards true liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe American Broadcasting Companies v. Aero case was pertaining to copyright laws. Aero is a company that delivers network television to subscribers using antennas allotted for each subscriber after they pay a small fee a month ranging from 8-12 dollars. The antennas capture over-the-air television signals from major networks like ABC, NBC, and FOX. Since the Federal law states that no one can “publicly perform” copyrighted work unless they pay you it was ruled illegal. Aero argued that it wasn’t public because the antennas were individual. The Supreme Court decided it was illegal. I agree with this decision and think that for the future of television it was in everyone’s best interest. I think if Aero were allowed to continue with their Internet TV, when more and more people decided to use Aero over paying for cable television, the cable companies would go out of business. If this were to happen then there would be no over-the-air television signals from those companies for Aero to use. At that point, everyone would be left with no television channels to watch. This case affected anyone who watches television whether it is the rates they are paying or the future of how they watch it. Futuristic concerns regarding this case could include how the Supreme Courts will chose to deal with how to draw the line of illegal and legal when it comes to other innovative technologies like cloud computing and remote storage DVR’s. This case also shows that the Supreme Court is taking copyright matters seriously and will closely search to correct companies finding “loopholes” in the law. Conclusively, with all of the technological advancements in this day and age, the Supreme Court will surely have their hands full but are showing that they can and will keep up with the times and handle modern issues effectively and accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThe ruling of the case of Riley vs California makes sure that a police officer needs a warrant before a police officer can check your cellphone for digital content. This does not apply in an "emergency situation." In this case, Riley felt like it was an invasion of privacy, especially without a reason from the courts. The Court acknowledged that the effects of this ruling will make it more difficult for police officers to do their job, and there will more paperwork for the police officers and the courts, but this ruling is for the benefit of most people and it comes at little cost. With this ruling, evidence found from cell phones could still be used, but the police officers would still need a warrant to access it, just like they do to search your house. There is a strong possibility that this case will set a precedent for other similar cases, like the police officers' right to check laptops and other electronic devices, which keep multiple types of information on peoples' lives electronically. This ruling also affects the government because if the NSA wants to see something on a person's cell phone, they will also need a warrant, unless the findings on the phone could aid the government on something of national importance. This also affects the general population because people want their things to be kept private and secure and with this they can be assured that unless they have a warrant to check your phone they cannot legally do so. I think this is a step in the right direction in a complex area, and will led to freedom that people desire and this might boost peoples' opinions on the government respecting their right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteIn the case between ABC v. Aereo, copyright infringement and the free market were the topics of discussion. Aereo is a service that sends you network television, such as Modern Family, through the internet for a much lower price than most cable companies charge. This is due to Aereo not paying the copyright owners aka ABC, Fox, CNN but instead picking up broadcast through antennae and then giving it to subscribers through the internet . Aereo avoided paying these copyright holders by using loopholes in wording of copyright laws. Loopholes that the Supreme Court effectively closed by determining that Aereo was illegal in a vote of 6 to 3. The precedents set by these rulings are that the current supreme court will not allow/ tolerate copyright infringement despite loopholes and technicalities and will protect the market from sliding down a slippery slope of permitting copyright infringement. While i do agree that Aereo is illegal this means cable companies have an even tighter grip on their customers and can continue price gouging and making you pay for channels you might not even watch without any competition. Federal power has definitely been increased with this ruling, the supreme court is closing loopholes that might damage the cable companies and broadcasting networks by killing Aereo with this ruling. The federal government deciding to help a business instead of allowing it to fail and then innovate to be better than its competition isn’t a principle of capitalism. The Obama administration and congress will likely support the ruling that Aereo was determined illegal because it protects the market from dangerous change like Obama did when he bailed out the automotive companies. Although some of the fiscally conservative in congress will argue that the ruling is neutering the free market. This shows the makeup of the supreme court is mostly liberal because conservatives, in most cases, would be in favor of a free market. In conclusion the decision made by the supreme court in the case ABC v. Aereo was one which protected the market effectively but could lead to a slippery slope where capitalistic principles will be ignored.
ReplyDeleteIn the assessment of the Riley vs. California case the Supreme Court was urged adopt the same rules for cell phones as California has. What this new rule says is that if a person is arrested, the police do not need a warrant to search that person cell phone in order to receive information that is crucial to a certain investigation. Currently the law states that once a person is arrested, the police have the right to confiscate that persons phone just in case the phone could be used as a weapon. However the searching of the contents of a persons cellular device is a big difference to the extent of the law now. What the supreme court would be doing by implementing this rule is basically just going against the 4th amendment in the constitution which states clearly that a persons property may not be searched without reason or a search warrant. So what this case could really be called is the Constitution vs. Federal Government because it all comes down to privacy or protection. In the supreme court's decision to stick to its more liberal methods by not complying with the federal governments ideas of implementing unwarranted searches of cell phones, it has saved U.S. citizen's privacy. This shows that the supreme court does not condone the changing of the constitution especially when it affects U.S. citizen's privacy. After this ruling, federal power is now negatively impacted because needing a warrant to search an arrestee's phone makes it harder for police to find clues to or end an investigation, but as time goes on cellular devices will only become a larger part of people's daily life so it is important privacy is kept as a main priority for the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteIn the American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo case, the Supreme Court shut down Aereo because it believed that Aereo was copyrighting the shows they broadcast by not paying the broadcasters for the rights to each show. Aereo simply let subscribers rent a plug-in antenna every month for around eight dollars to see shows that many cable customers watch for a much higher price for bigger companies. The vote in the Supreme Court was six to three to shut down Aereo. The six voted to shut it down because what the company is doing is against copyrighting laws; in other words, what they are doing is illegal. Aereo is not paying the owners of a show's copyrights but picking up shows from their antenna and allowing other people to do the same thing without permission from the copyright owners. But what about the other three voters? Why might they have voted to keep Aereo running? Maybe they voted to keep Aereo running because they think of the business as a new innovative idea so viewers won't have to pay unnecessarily high prices to other television companies. Aereo may have come up with a creative, alternative solution to cheaper prices. While the Supreme Court has decided that the company Aereo is illegal, I believe they should have given Aereo another chance to legalize their company and provide everyday people with a less expensive, alternate way to watch their favorite shows but still pay copyright fees. This would give the cable companies some competition, which would also be good for viewers, because this would provide them with a choice between a cheaper company that uses an antenna, or a big business who uses a more common method to broadcast their shows. I believe this case should have been looked into further, by other than the Supreme Court, and if it had been, Aereo may have been given another chance.
ReplyDeleteIn the Riley v. California case, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that police must get a warrant in order to search a suspect's cellular phone during an arrest. This case is very interesting because cell phones are able to hold a tremendous amount of information. They allow people to hold every detail of their lives in a small device. This information would be extremely helpful for police while investigating a crime. Being forced to get a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone could slow down investigations and lose important evidence. However, I personally agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. A cell phone can hold large amounts of personal data about someone's private life. That is where privacy rights come into play. It would be considered unlawful search and seizure of a device that hold's all of the personal information in one's life. Therefore it would be against the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutional to search a cell phone without a warrant. The people have their right to privacy. Therefore, the Supreme Court has made the best decision in the interest of protecting people's rights. This will now affect the NSA, as they will now need a warrant to search the contents of a suspect's cell phone. It is interesting because they have been able to search phones of those who are not under arrest already. In the end, the ruling is the best decision the Supreme Court could have made to protect our personal rights.
ReplyDeleteIn the Riley vs. California case, it has been decided by the Supreme Court that police must get a warrant before searching through the digital contents of an arrestee's cell phone. The physical properties of the cell phone can be observed to ensure police safety. However, the information inside of the cell phone cannot be viewed to protect the suspect's privacy. Most people nowadays have more information stored in their cell phones, than in their homes. Documents, photos, videos, and tape recorders have been made more easily accessible with the help of cell phones. Now because of the influx of the use of cell phones in daily life, police have been ordered to obtain a warrant before searching through a suspect's phone. Warrants take time for police to get, and important evidence can be deleted or erased by that time. On the other hand, a warrant ensures that innocent people are not arrested for a crime they may have not committed. This ruling does not mean that the evidence on an arrestee's phone can never be used or viewed, it just means that police will need a document from the court that allows them to justifiably obtain it. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. In most cases, cell phones hold information that could document someone's whole personal life. If the police were to view that without my or the government's consent, that would be against the Fourth Amendment. It would be concluded as an unconstitutional search and invasion of privacy. Obama and the administration will most likely not react with too much objection regarding the situation. This is because it's a decision revolving around the Judicial Branch and has more to do with the court system and not the Executive branch. Obama and Congress should trust the Supreme Court's judgement on the matter because they have made the best decision on protecting the people's rights. This ruling shows that the makeup of the Supreme Court is conservative. They believe in abiding by the Constitutional Amendments, and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of that. This issue had some debate before coming to a final conclusion, so my guess is that this topic will arise once again in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn the Supreme Court case Riley vs. California the issue at hand is whether or not the police are allowed to search the cell phone of a person while they are being arrested. The ruling of the case says that a warrant is needed to search the cell phone of the suspect unless in the case of an emergency. If the police officer or others around or involved with the suspect are in danger, and the police officer believes that there is some information on the cell phone that will be able to save of help themselves, then they are allowed to search on the phone. If not, then a warrant must be issued in order to protect the person's privacy. If the suspect were to be innocent and their cell phone was searched as much personal information could be discovered as if the police were to go search their house. With technology today every single aspect of a person's life could be found on their phone in a few simple clicks. This ruling affects the federal government because it makes it a little harder to find information on a person. Although it is not impossible to get a warrant, in the time it takes for the warrant to be obtained the suspect could alter some of the information on their phone and even delete some vital data. Doing this could make it a lot harder for the police to find any more information they need. Whatever information they do find on the phone though after the warrant is approved may be used. This case ruling shows that the Supreme Court is liberal, giving the people equal opportunity and equality with their right to personal privacy.
ReplyDeleteIn the Riley v. California case, conflict erupted around the issue of whether or not police officers must obtain a warrant before searching the contents of one's cell phone. Without a warrant, many believe their rights under the 4th amendment would be endangered. Accessing the personal information in a suspect's phone, without permission, is an invasion of privacy and a serious matter. Others suggest that waiting on a warrant will jeopardize the investigation, by allowing evidence or other important content on the phone to be erased. This, however, is not possible to do if the phone is turned off or the battery is removed. After much discussion, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to search one's cell phone and I agree with this ruling. As a precedent for future cases, this shows how the United States will uphold the rights given to citizens in the Constitution. Privacy is a very important aspect in everyone's lives and should be respected, unless in the case of an "emergency situation." Acquiring a warrant is very simple and will not halt the analysis of a crime to the extent where time and evidence are lost. As stated in "Get a warrant! Today’s cellphone privacy decision in Plain English" by Amy Howe, even politicians understand the importance of keeping the information on their cell phone to themselves. I support this ruling because it ensures the protection of the citizens' rights and sets the right kind of precedent that should be followed in future circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe American Broadcasting Companies vs. Aereo case deals with the matter of violating copyright laws. Aereo is, or was, an upcoming company with the idea of delivering network television to subscribers using individual antennas that can tune in to specific channels requested by the subscriber. The cost of Aereo is low because they don't pay the copyright owners (ABC, NBC, FOX, etc.). They thought they found a loophole in the copyright law where it states no one can "publicly perform" a copyrighted work unless the owner of the copyright is paid. Aereo's argument is that they aren't publicly sending the television because the antenna is individual to the subscriber. However, Supreme Court decided that the distinction between sending the information individually vs. streaming it to everyone made no difference in the law. The Court ruled it illegal in a vote 6 to 3. Whether you think that Aereo was publicly sending television or not, the fact still stands that because Aereo's fee was low, more television viewers would have switched to this method instead of the cable companies. When the cable companies stop getting paid by the millions of viewers, they can't pay the networks to distribute the programs. If the networks don't have money, the programs that the viewers are watching can't be made. The cable companies would go out of business and there would be no signals for Aereo's antennas to pick up. All together the Supreme Court's decision saved the cable companies from going out of business, and stopping a change in the way viewers watch television from happening. Even though I agree with this ruling and believe Aereo was illegal, I do feel the decision might discourage other innovative ideas and technology from being made in the future. The precedent made by this ruling, however, is not along the lines of innovation, whereas it more shows that the Supreme Court will not allow loopholes found by a company to violate copyright laws, or any laws for that matter. Therefore, the American Broadcasting Companies vs. Aereo case shows innovative technology is being made, but putting it into effect might not be so simple.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Riley vs California, I believe the Supreme Court did an excellent job in their final decision making. Even though the times are changing some rights as basic as privacy must be kept in this new and changing world. People that have cell phones range from all ages. No matter what kind of phone you have, your phone most likely has more information than the people around you could ever know. The decision that warrants are needed to search phones was a good one on behalf of the Supreme Court. Even though the phone could have critical evidence of a crime, it would still be in the hands of the authorities. While technology and hacking are also becoming issues, an officer can simply protect the information on the device by taking the battery out or shutting it off. If the case is so crucial that getting a warrant may cause this case to turn bad quickly, then an officer can just examine the phone in emergencies. If the situation was an emergency, searching may be justified. I believe this was the idea of the founding fathers. Since early England had so many unruly and intruding inspections of innocent homeowners, the founding fathers did not want to build a nation on barging in on someone whenever the need was felt. The Supreme Court made a great decision this ruling.
ReplyDeleteAt the conclusion of the Riley V. California case the Supreme Court decided that police cannot go through an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant. This decision was well thought out and will make a positive impact. In regards to a person’s privacy this ruling protects a person’s basic rights. Police officers can still confiscate a phone if they feel as if it could be used as a weapon against them or someone else but they may not go through the digital content of the phone. In a serious situation that is considered life threatening the Supreme Court can overrule this, thus allowing an officer to make and on the spot decision to go through the digital contents of the phone. Even though the ruling may make officers have to work harder to find information they already “have” it is the right way to go. In my opinion this ruling that was just made is crucial as it shows citizens in the United States that the government is considering our rights and protecting us and our privacy. We all know now a days our smart phones are our lives, we have everything from business information to pictures of loved ones stored on them and they can sometimes tell police more about us than if they searched our homes or talked to friends. To me this is a step forward and this ruling made by the Supreme Court will protect United States citizens when they are being arrested and it comes to their privacy.
ReplyDeleteIn the Riley vs. California case, the Supreme Court ruled that when making an arrest, the arrestee's cellphone can not be search without a warrant. However, that does not apply to cases of emergencies; in that situation the police officer my look on the arrestee's cellphone. Although it might be in convent to take more time to get a warrant, it is a lot easier now a days to a warrant in a short amount of time such as sending emails or making a phone call. So it's not really an issue. Also in a case of urgency like a bomb threat and an abduction, then it would be justifiable to search without a warrant. This could effect the government because if there is something of national importance then they will need to get a warrant, unless it is an emergency, which it probably would be in a matter if national importance. So the courts ruling isn't really negatively impacting the police or government. Therefore, It's a good thing that the government is giving people more privacy.
ReplyDeleteIn the Riley v. California case, it was ruled that police officers must have a warrant to search the arrestee’s cellphone unless it is an emergency case. I feel that this is a very fair a justifiable law. In a situation of emergency, where you would need as much information as soon as possible, you can get that information at that moment. But, if it is not an emergency, that information is not needed right away, giving you time to get a warrant. Also, the officers are allowed to confiscate the arrestee’s cellphone and turn it off so the information on it cannot be deleted. This was a step in the right direction because people sometimes have more information about their personal lives on their phones than in their own homes and if an officer needs a warrant to search a person’s home, they should need a warrant to search their phone.
ReplyDelete