P H O T O G R A P H B Y M C T V I A G E T T Y I M A G E S

Society | DOI: 10.1145/2591231 Keith Kirkpatrick
Technology Confounds
the Courts
Despite the need to make decisions relevant to technologies,
the U.S. Supreme Court is not the most techno-savvy group.

lost or stolen) can make the issue more complicated, in terms of balancing personal liberty against the needs of law enforcement.

Such a scenario explicitly highlights the concerns of court watchers such as Mark Grabowski, an attorney and assistant professor of communications who teaches an Internet law course at Adelphi University, regarding the technological knowledge of the judges.

During the oral argument phase of a Supreme Court case several years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts made comments that seemed to indicate he was unaware of how personal pagers functioned, apparently believing messages were transmitted directly between the devices without utilizing a cellular network. While the exchange was played for laughs, Grabowski believes exchanges in oral arguments are often misinterpreted, as court proceedings are not recorded, but simply transcribed. Judges often ask questions that, in transcripts, may look foolish, but serve a purpose in trying to clarify the legal distinctions between certain types of technology.

AN ELITE GROUP of Ameri- cans have come under fire for being averse to and unknowledgeable about he basic workings and culture surrounding new technology. Despite being viewed as some of the brightest and most accomplished people in their respective field of employ, they have publicly admitted to being resistant to using technology in their own professional and personal lives, and have been ridiculed as woefully out of touch with the basic workings of technology that has been in common use for a decade or more.

This group of individuals is none other than the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who are often asked to rule on cases that are extremely technical in nature.

With an average age of nearly 70 years, no one expects the justices to be regular users of technology developed largely for the young, such as Vine or Instagram. However, the perception that the members of the Court simply do not understand the basic workings or culture surrounding the use of technology has many observers worried about whether the highest court in the land is unprepared or unwilling to make truly informed rulings on today’s pressing Constitutional issues that are impacted by technology.

One of the highest-profile issues the Court is expected to weigh in on focuses on the warrantless search of cellphones, and whether such a search is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of protection against unreasonable search and seizure. This spring, the Supreme Court was scheduled to address cases from California and Massachusetts, respectively, both arising from prosecutions that question the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search of the suspect’s cellphone after arrest.

Earlier court precedent allows police officers to search all items a person has on them at the time of arrest without requiring a warrant. However,

as cellphones have grown to include email, bank history, and location data, the potential problems with the existing standards have become apparent. Furthermore, the ability for people to “wipe” or erase the contents of a device remotely (such as when a phone is One of the highest-profile issues the Court is expected to weigh in on focuses on the warrantless search of cellphone content.