A good ruling?

Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for cellphone location information

Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court outlined what has come to be known as the “third-party doctrine” – the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not protect records or information that someone voluntarily shares with someone or something else. Today the Supreme Court ruled that, despite this doctrine, police will generally need to get a warrant to obtain cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers (or other sites) with which a cellphone connected. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the five-justice majority pointed to “seismic shifts in digital technology,” which have allowed wireless carriers to collect “deeply revealing” information about cellphone owners that should be protected by the Constitution. Roberts characterized the ruling as a narrow one, but it still drew criticism from the dissenting justices, who complained that it is likely to imperil, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, “many legitimate and valuable investigative practices on which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”

In this case Roberts joined with the four liberals to declare that there are some limits to the "third-party doctrine". I think this is a good (but very limited ruling). With cell phone technology so absurdly robust, and the basic concept that nearly everyone carries one, you have to believe that with all of what these cell phones (and cell phone carriers) can monitor and report on, eventually becomes too much to simply demand that you are willingly and freely providing this to a "third party".

Perhaps the fine print on your cell phone contracts cover this, but I hardly believe that the choice of carrying a cell phone should mean that law enforcement and our intelligence community can legally monitor your every movement without a warrant.