Story

Especially good parts of this story are
- It was unanimous
- Roberts specifically addressed the fact that this ruling will make police work more difficult, and concluded that 'privacy has a cost'
- They clearly state that modern 'cell phones' are worthy of such protection not because of the type of data on them, but the amount of data on them; that is, while police are able to search wallets, and cell phones contain similar data, the fact that cell phones contain so much more data, and data of such varied types, makes them worthy of protection

A common complaint of the courts is that they don't 'get' technology; this shows to me that the Supereme Court does 'get' the privacy implications of modern data-holding technology.