By Lyndsey Kelly
Desk Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON D.C., United States of America – On 25 June 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers need a warrant before they can search the cellphone of an arrested suspect. The unanimous 9-0 ruling was a major decision in favor of privacy rights at a time of increasing concern over the government’s encroachment on digital communications.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said, “we cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” he added that the right to privacy “comes at a cost.”

Currently, law enforcement can search a person under arrest and whatever physical items are within reach to find weapons and preserve evidence. However, the Court noted that in today’s society smartphones carry a vast amount of sensitive data and cannot be compared to other items found in a search. “Modern cell phones…implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet or a purse,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

The court made its decision after weighing two separate cases, one from Massachusetts and one from California. While the cases were different in scope and the type of cellphone used, one was a flip cellphone the other a smartphone, the Court decided the two cases together, finding both searches unconstitutional.

Concern about increasing government encroachment on personal privacy has surged in the past year following the disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the (country’s) Founders fought.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

In it’s opinion the Court noted that there would be some emergency situations in which a warrantless search will be permitted. The court held that the “exigent circumstances” exception to the warrant requirement would also be applied to cellphones. Thus, in a situation that is an imminent danger to life or the possibility that evidence will be destroyed may justify searching a cellphone without a warrant.

In a concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito opened the door to further exceptions stating that he would reconsider the question presented if Congress enacts legislation that draws reasonable distinctions based on the categories of information contained in the searched cellphone.

 

For more information see the following: 

CHICAGO TRIBUNE – Supreme Court limits police right to search cell phones – 29 June 2014.

MSNBC – Supreme Court rules cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant – 29 June 2014.

REUTERS –  U.S Supreme Court’s milestone ruling protects cellphone privacy – 29 June 2014.

USA TODAY – Supreme Court limits police searches of cellphones – 29 June 2014.

 

By Lyndsey Kelly
Desk Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C.- United States of America – A Supreme Court decision on 16 June 2014 has allowed prosecution under a federal law that requires gun buyers to disclose that they are making their purchase for someone else, even if both the straw buyer and the real buyer are eligible to own guns.

The decision upheld a federal law that makes it a crime for one person to buy a gun for another, when the purchaser lies to the dealer about who the gun is actually for. Federal law considers this a straw-man purchase.

The 5-4 decision upheld two lower courts that had ruled against straw-man purchases, despite the fact that the justices acknowledged that Congress left loopholes in gun control laws that were passed in the 1960’s and the 1990’s.

The case came before the Supreme Court after a former Virginia police officer, Bruce Abramski, plead guilty to making a false statement when purchasing a firearm. Abramski was sentenced to five years of probation

Abramski, bought the handgun for his uncle, Angel Alvarez, who lived in Pennsylvania at the time. When purchasing the handgun, Abramski filled out a federal form indicating that he was buying the gun for himself. Abramski defended his actions by stating that he assumed that by showing his old police ID he would receive a discount from the dealer.

Richard Deitz, Abramski’s attorney, argued that when the federal law was enacted Congress had intended to focus only on the initial buyer. “Congress didn’t use terms like ‘true buyer’ or ‘true purchaser’…because they are not concerned about the ultimate recipients of firearms.” Dietz said.

The Court was split along ideological lines.  Writing for the majority, Justice Elena Kagan rejected Mr. Abramski’s argument that his misstatement had been immaterial because the purpose of the federal law was solely to ensure that the immediate buyer was eligible to own a gun.

She wrote, “Abramski’s reading would undermine-indeed, for all important purposes would virtually repeal- the gun law’s core provisions.” Justice Kagan said that the law helps keep guns out of the hands of those not legally able to buy them, including those suffering from mental illnesses or those with previous felony convictions. Justice Kagan passionately wrote, “putting true numbskulls to one side, anyone purchasing a gun for criminal purposes would avoid leaving a paper trail by the simple expedient of hiring a straw.”

The dissenting justices said that the federal law in question makes no distinction between people who purchased guns for themselves and buyers who intended to purchase for later resale. Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion made specific mention of the legality of purchasing guns as gifts or for later resale.

This is the second decision this term by the conservative court that went against the gun lobby.

 

For more information see the following:

REUTERS – Supreme Court Rules Against ‘Straw Buyer’ In Gun Case – 23 June 2014.

NBC NEWS –  Divided Supreme Court Shoots Down ‘Straw’ Purchases of Guns – 23 June 2014.

NEW YORK TIMES – Supreme Court Rules Against ‘Straw’ Purchases Of Guns – 23 June 2014.

USA TODAY – Supreme Court Rules Against ‘Straw Purchasers’ of Guns – 23 June 2014.