The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police officers usually need a warrant before they can search an arrested suspect's cellphone, a major decision in favor of privacy rights at a time of increasing concern over government encroachment in digital communications.


In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said that the right of police to search an arrested suspect at the scene without a warrant does not extend in most circumstances to data held on a cellphone.

There are some emergency situations in which a warrantless search would be permitted, the court noted.

The unanimous 9-0 ruling goes against law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice, which wanted more latitude to search without having to obtain a warrant. The ruling is a win for digital privacy advocates.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote.

The right to privacy, he said, "comes at a cost."

The court was weighing two separate cases that pitted evolving expectations of privacy against the interests of the law enforcement community as the court for the first time weighed the increasingly ubiquitous role of cellphones in modern day life.

The ruling appears to be in line with public opinion based on results of a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, which found that 60.7 percent of people surveyed said police should not be allowed to search cellphones without a warrant.

Cellphones, initially used purely to make calls, now contain a wealth of personal information about the owner, including photographs, video and social media content. According to a 2013 report by the Pew Research Center, 91 percent of adult Americans have a cell phone, more than a half of them smartphones that can connect to the Internet.

Concerns about increasing government encroachment on personal privacy, especially in relation to electronic communications, has surged into the public eye over the last year after disclosures made by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about government surveillance.

Roberts acknowledged the unique nature of cell phones in contemporary life, noting that "the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

Justice Samuel Alito, who is a former federal prosecutor, wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the outcome but saying that Congress and state legislatures should be allowed to pass laws that would narrow the scope of the ruling once they have considered "the legitimate needs of law enforcement."

The defendants challenging their convictions, David Riley and Brima Wurie, said evidence found on their phones should not have been used at trial because the searches were conducted without court-issued warrants.

The circumstances in the two cases, one from Massachusetts and one from California, were different, both in terms of the scope of the search and the type of cellphone used. Wurie had a basic flip phone while Riley had a more sophisticated smartphone.

The court decided the two cases together, finding that both searches were unconstitutional.

The legal question was whether the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches, requires police following an arrest to get court approval before a cellphone can be searched.

Riley was convicted of three charges relating to an August 2009 incident in San Diego in which shots were fired at an occupied vehicle. Local prosecutors linked him to the crime in part based on a photograph police found on his smartphone.

In the other case, police searched Wurie's cellphone without a warrant after his September 2007 arrest for suspected drug dealing. Officers used the device, which was not a smartphone, to find a phone number that took them to Wurie's house in Boston, where drugs, a gun and cash were found.

The cases are Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212.

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, the face of Harlem politics for generations, held off a strong Democratic primary challenge and moved one step closer to what he says will be his 23rd and final term in the House.

Add captionRep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., center, raises
his arms with Adam Clinton Powell IV, left, as he
claims victory over opponent state Sen. Adriano Espaillat
during a primary election night gathering, Tuesday, June 24, 2014, in New York.

Rangel, 84, defeated state Sen. Adriano Espaillat in what was a bruising fight that shed light on the changing face of a district that was once one of the nation's black political power bases.

With 100 percent of the vote counted in unofficial results, Rangel led Espaillat 47.4 percent to 43.6 percent, a difference of fewer than 2,000 votes. About 47,000 votes were counted Tuesday. The Associated Press called Rangel the winner based on fresh information Wednesday afternoon from the city Board of Elections on the numbers of absentee and provisional ballots cast that were not included in the election night tally. The number of absentee and provisional ballots were not sufficient for Espaillat to catch Rangel.

Rangel and Espaillat had stayed out of sight Wednesday, and Rangel's campaign didn't immediate respond to inquiries after the AP called the race. Espaillat's campaign declined to comment. Rangel's campaign had announced earlier Wednesday that he planned to attend a "unity rally" Saturday at the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network headquarters in Harlem.

"Now that the campaign is over and Congressman Rangel has won, we look forward to coming together and addressing the issues facing the 13th Congressional District," senior campaign adviser Charlie King said in a statement announcing the appearance.

Late Tuesday night, Rangel dubbed himself the nominee in an unprecedented, nearly hour-long folksy speech that was part thank you, part real-time political analysis and, eventually, part declaration of victory even though the race was at that point too close to call.

"This was your victory," Rangel told the crowd. "This is your congressman. And you can rest assured all I will be doing is thinking about you and bringing resources back home."

At one moment during his rambling address, the stage buckled under the weight of the 22-term congressman and more than a dozen elected officials who wanted to stand near him. After determining that no one was hurt, Rangel resumed talking. And talking.

Acknowledging that he was "killing time" as the votes were being counted, Rangel held court, continually introducing new speakers and asking his advisers and journalists for updates on the latest totals.

Finally, after a local TV station called the race, balloons dropped from the ceiling. Rangel raised his arms aloft and smiled.

Espaillat was bidding to become the first Dominican-American in Congress. He has not conceded, urging that every vote be counted, and his team has said it could mount a legal challenge.

The race was a rematch of their 2012 primary, narrowly won by Rangel.

Rangel, known as the Lion of Harlem, was once arguably the most influential black elected official in the U.S., known for his gravelly voice, impeccable suits and staunch liberal views, including his outspoken opposition to apartheid and the Iraq War.

But he was weakened after 2010 ethics violations that forced him to give up the chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and his district was then redrawn to include parts of the Bronx, which along with accelerating gentrification of Harlem transformed a heavily black district into one that was majority Hispanic.

The shifting racial terrain was a backdrop for the race, which grew nastier as primary day approached. At a debate, Rangel said Espaillat "wants to be the Jackie Robinson of the Dominicans in the Congress," adding that Espaillat should tell voters "just what the heck has he done besides saying he's a Dominican?"

That remark drew a sharp retort from Espaillat and a chiding from Mayor Bill de Blasio, who managed Rangel's 1994 campaign yet refused to offer an endorsement this time.

Harlem Pastor Michael Walrond and Bronx activist Yolanda Garcia also ran, finishing far back.

A drone that spooked a Seattle woman in her apartment and prompted a police probe of possible invasion of privacy was not trying to catch an illicit image but rather shooting a panoramic view for a developer, the company that operates it said on Wednesday.

The incident on Sunday gained national media attention after the woman called her building's concierge to complain the device might have been used to look into her apartment, and posted a photo online of the drone flying outside her window.

Lisa Pleiss told Seattle television station KCPQ that she was not completely dressed when she saw the drone outside her window. "I kind of, like, hid for a second and got myself taken care of and then I went back out and looked and went to grab my camera and it swooped away really fast," she told the station on Monday.

The concierge called Seattle police, who said this was the first time they had investigated a case of a drone possibly being used to peep on a person at a residence.

Joe Vaughn, founder of Portland-based startup Skyris Imaging, said he and a pilot of the drone were shooting a panoramic view for a client planning to build a 20-story office tower near the woman's apartment building.

Vaughn said he had talked by phone with the woman who complained.

"I called her and let her know I'm sorry she was startled but we were doing an honest job, we were not peeping toms," Vaughn said in a phone interview.

"There were no images taken at all of this woman," said Vaughn, who added that he has contacted police.

Seattle police spokesman Drew Fowler confirmed Vaughn had reached out to investigators and that he cooperated with them.

"There's no known crimes that were committed during the act and there's no effort to be pressing charges at this time,” Fowler said.

General Motors Co  on Wednesday said that it has told its North American dealers to stop selling new and used Chevrolet Cruze sedans from model years 2013 and 2014 because of a potential problem with the airbags.

The biggest U.S. automaker has not at this point recalled the cars in consumer hands, and is investigating how many vehicles have a faulty part for the airbags in the sedans, said a GM spokesman.

GM said it does not yet.

In this Feb. 19, 2012 file photo, a line of 2012 Chevrolet Cruze sedans sit at a dealership in the south Denver suburb of Englewood, Colo.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio meets with reporters
on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

The leader of the U.S. House of Representatives said Wednesday the Republican-controlled House will file an election-year lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of failing to carry out the laws passed by Congress.

Speaker John Boehner provided no details of the specific claims to be made in the suit, although Republicans have long accused Obama of selectively enforcing the health care law that bears his name and doing the same with immigration legislation on the books.

In response, White House press secretary Josh Earnest accused congressional Republicans of obstruction and said they had left Obama with little option but to make greater use of his executive authority.

"The fact that they are considering a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the president of the United States for doing his job, I think, is the kind of step that most Americans wouldn't support," Earnest said.

The suit would be filed on behalf of the House and its mere existence would likely set off a partisan struggle. Three Republicans and two Democrats comprise a bipartisan group charged with overseeing House legal matters.

The group must meet to approve filing a suit on behalf of the House, and a party-line vote is all but certain.

Boehner strongly brushed aside a question of whether impeachment proceedings could result from the suit. "This is not about impeachment. This is about his (Obama's) faithfully executing the laws of our country," he said.

He also rejected a suggestion that the suit was designed to give traditional Republican voters a reason for going to the polls in Novemberl when control of Congress will be at stake.

"This is about defending the institution in which we serve," he said. "What we've seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch."

Police departments in the U.S. have become excessively and dangerously militarized, according to a report published by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

A member of the SWAT team trains a gun on an apartment building during a search for the remaining suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in Watertown, Massachusetts April 19, 2013.

The organization’s investigation found that SWAT deployments are increasingly used to search homes for drugs and are carried out despite the presence of children and elderly. It also said poor standards were used to gauge whether an operation was “high risk” — such as whether a suspect was armed and dangerous — and that squads were increasingly adopting warrior-like mind-sets.

Some key numbers from the report, which is titled War Comes Home:

•50% people impacted by SWAT deployments from 2011 to 2012 are black or Latino. Whites account for 20%.
•Seven civilians were killed and 46 injured in such deployments from 2010 to 2013.
•79% of all SWAT deployments were to execute search warrants for homes, most of them for drug searches.
•7% of deployments were for hostage, barricade or active-shooter scenarios.

Tragic case studies accompany the figures, among them that of Tarika Wilson, a 26-year-old mother who was shot and killed holding her 14-month-old son, and Eurie Stamp, a 68-year-old grandfather who was shot while watching baseball in his pajamas during a SWAT invasion. Bounkham Phonesavanh, a 19-month-old baby, was in a medically induced coma after paramilitary squads unwittingly threw a flash grenade into his crib, piercing a hole in his cheek, chest and scarring his body with third-degree burns. None of the victims were suspects.

The ACLU claims the militarization of policing in the U.S. lacks oversight and transparency. Not a single law-enforcement agency provided documents of all information “necessary to undertake a thorough examination of police militarization.”

It added, “Neighborhoods are not war zones, and our police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies.”

California-based skyTran has teamed up with Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) to construct the world's first public pilot project for skyTran's elevated transit network.

Trade visitors gather at the IAI exhibition booth at the Singapore Airshow.

A number of skyTran projects are being planned globally, including in India and the United States, pending the success of the pilot in Israel.

The pilot will be a 400-500 meter (yard) loop built at IAI's campus in central Israel and, if successful, will be followed by a commercial network in Tel Aviv in the coming years, skyTran CEO Jerry Sanders told Reuters, without disclosing the cost.

SkyTran is a rapid transit system in which lightweight two-person vehicles are suspended from elevated magnetic levitation tracks. The skyTran vehicles in the pilot will cruise at speeds of up to 70 km an hour but that will jump to 240 km an hour at the commercial phase, Sanders said.

Tel Aviv if often gridlocked with commuter traffic as there is no subway and many commuters travel by car.

"Tel Aviv is a world city. It's a destination for people around the world. A center of commerce. Israelis love technology and we don't foresee a problem of people not wanting to use the system. Israel is a perfect test site," Sanders said.

The first components will be pre-assembled at skyTran's headquarters at the NASA Research Park in California. The rest will be constructed locally and the system should be running by the end of 2015, Sanders added.

At the same time his company hopes to finalize preparations for its first ever commuter line, which in the first phase will be about 7 km (2.7 miles) long, consist of three stations, and cost about $50 million to build.

Everything will be automated. Passengers will be able to order a vehicle on their smartphone to meet them at a specific station, and then head directly to their destination, cutting travel time dramatically.

"It can handle 12,000 people an hour per guideway, and that number grows exponentially with each additional guideway," Sanders said. "That is more than a light rail and equal to three lanes of highway."

IAI, Israel's largest defense company, said it would bring to the pilot its expertise in engineering, robotics and control.

France is upping the rhetoric in the fight over plans to issue “.wine” and “.vin” web domains. The web-naming governing body, ICANN, decided to issue the two new suffixes earlier this year but France is worried is that the domains are to be issued without any geographical protections.

A woman enjoys a glass of wine in Lille, northern France.

The European Union regulates the labeling of certain regional foods and drinks. So, for example, sparkling wine produced in England cannot be sold as champagne or cava anywhere in Europe. France goes further and labels everything from vin de table (budget wine produced anywhere in France) to appellation d’origine controlée, which comes from one specific vineyard. But the new ICANN suffixes would allow someone to buy the web address “www.burgundy.wine,” for instance, and sell anything on it, without any recourse to the winemakers in Burgundy. French vignerons have already called for a boycott (link in French).

The French are now threatening to derail the ongoing US-EU trade talks, which aim to create the world’s biggest free-trade zone, over the issue. Three French government ministers, reports the Financial Times today, have written (paywall) to the European Commission to say “these decisions could imperil the current talks on the transatlantic [trade] partnership by forcing the imposition of a model by the means of technical discussions on internet naming.”

Underlying France’s objections is not just concern over wine, but a deeper dissatisfaction with ICANN and internet governance in general. ICANN, a California-based non-profit founded in 1998, makes most of its money by issuing domain-name suffixes, and is in the process of a massive expansion, issuing hundreds of new “top-level domains” like “.beer” and “.book” as well as domains in non-Latin scripts. The US Commerce Department, which has overseen ICANN up to now, is in the process of relinquishing control, leaving ICANN independent. That has some American lawmakers worried that ICANN will no longer be accountable, but for some foreign governments, that was always a problem.

“France calls for the accelerated reform of ICANN in order to ensure that greater consideration is given to the recommendations of states concerning Internet governance, in order to develop a model of governance that is more transparent and inclusive,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in March. In April, the ministry said ICANN’s decision to issue domain names without any provision for protecting geographic origin went against EU policy, and issued a request for reconsideration (pdf, French).

France’s Minister for Digital Affairs, Axelle Lemaire, told the FT that ICANN is “totally opaque, there is no transparency at all in the process.” She wants to turn it essentially into another United Nations-type body where there is a charter and a general assembly based on a “one country, one vote” principle for the management of the internet.

You can watch this week’s meeting of ICANN in London live to find out how well this proposal is received.