NJ Supreme Court Restricts Police Searches of Phone Data

[SgtToadette 59]

Not sure how many of you are following the Edward Snowden situation and the NSA's domestic spying activities that he revealed, but this is a related topic that is important to us New Jersey Folk.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/nyregion/new-jersey-supreme-court-restricts-police-searches-of-phone-data.html?_r=0

 

While the US media has largely ignored the importance of the Snowden leaks and instead chosen to focus on Mr. Snowden himself, it has become increasingly obvious how much the NSA knows about every American. Fortunately, it seems that the NJ Supreme court has taken a step in the right direction.

[KevD 0]

Omg new jersey did something right for once ... Im shocked... Really i am

[plode 0]

So does this mean that if my phone is stolen, even with my permission, police now have to obtain a search warrant to track its location? 

This article is a little confusing as to exactly what this ruling does.  

In this quote, it states the ruling involved a case of a stolen phone, and that a court ordered the tracing of it...in which they found a guy in a bar(I'm guessing with the phone).  I'm guessing the data, provided to them by T-Mobile included calls or texts to another person from the stolen phone.  But how they obtained the location data of another phone is missing from the article. 

Maybe it's just me but the dots don't connect. 

1. Stolen phone GPS says phone is in bar.  2. They find a man in the bar with the phone.  3.  Some how data from the phone leads them to a motel room with stolen goods.  

Unless they tracked the location of phones the guy in the bar was calling, or he gave up the info, I don't see how they could obtain the location of the stolen goods in the motel.

 

 

The ruling involved a case that began with a string of burglaries in homes in Middletown, N.J. A court ordered the tracing of a cellphone that had been stolen from one home, which led to a man in a bar in nearby Asbury Park, who said his cousin had sold him the phone, and had been involved in burglaries. The police then used data they got from T-Mobile to locate the suspect, Thomas W. Earls, at three points on a subsequent evening, tracking him to a motel room where he was found with a television and suitcases full of stolen goods.

 

What exactly does this ruling limit them from doing? 

 

And regardless of whatever this ruling limits police from doing, it doesn't stop the NSA from digging. 

[SgtToadette 59]

Here's the best explanation I've come across:

 

"As someone who has studied the NJ Constitution and the jurisprudence of the NJ Supreme Court, this does not come as any kind of surprise. It was an unsettled question, but anyone familiar with State v. Hunt shouldn't be surprised. (Ruling back in 1994 that telephone billing records could not be searched without a warrant).

 

This decision limits the admissibility of evidence collected by officers of the NJ government and has no bearing on federal rules of evidence or federal officers.

 

NJ has a lot of search and seizure protections that go beyond the protections offered by the 4th Amendment. Examples:

 

No warrantless searches of garbage.

 

No "good faith exception" to exclusionary rule.

 

No warrantless searches of automobile incident to arrest.

 

For a consent search to be valid the state must prove that the suspect knew at the time that they had the right to refuse consent (which, realistically can only be proven by having them sign a waiver in advance of the search).

 

Police officers may not ask for consent to search you or your car or your home for no reason -- they must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the search requested will uncover evidence thereof.

 

There are others. If you are really interested in NJ Search and Seizure, or other individual liberties jurisprudence, feel free to get in touch with me. I have access to long papers and law review articles at that would bore most people to tears but I find endlessly fascinating."

 

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1ilv5j/new_jersey_supreme_court_rules_that_cellphone/cb5rw1x

[plode 0]

 

Here's the best explanation I've come across:

 

"As someone who has studied the NJ Constitution and the jurisprudence of the NJ Supreme Court, this does not come as any kind of surprise. It was an unsettled question, but anyone familiar with State v. Hunt shouldn't be surprised. (Ruling back in 1994 that telephone billing records could not be searched without a warrant).

 

This decision limits the admissibility of evidence collected by officers of the NJ government and has no bearing on federal rules of evidence or federal officers.

 

No warrantless searches of automobile incident to arrest.

So in any serious investigation, NJ police agencies could team up with a federal agency and make this ruling completely pointless.  For example: Trenton PD is investigating a drug dealer.  They ask for the DEA's assistance.  The DEA requests phone records, they subseqently make the arrest and due to the fact that the DEA made the request, the evidence is still admissible in court. 

 

I'm willing to bet you'll see a lot more "joint investigations" to sidestep this ruling. 

 

Also regarding the warrantless searches of auto's incident to arrest- can't police still do an inventory search of a vehicle that is to be impounded?