High court: warrant needed for cell-phone searches

Posted on June 25th, 2014 by Global Ganja Report and tagged , , , , .

Shadow WatchThe US Supreme Court issued a key ruling in favor of Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age June 25, finding unanimously that police in most cases need a warrant before searching the cellphone or personal electronic device of an arrestee. Chief Justice John Roberts firmly rejected arguments that searches of digital devices are comparable to searches police routinely carry out for contraband after making an arrest. In the cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie (argued separetly, but decided together), Roberts wrote: "Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse... The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant."

The court did find that while the police may not search the cellphone data, they may search the phone itself to make sure it can't be used as a weapon. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the court's basic holding but saying he'd give legislatures greater leeway to set rules limiting the warrant requirement in certain circumstances. The Justice Department issued a statement pleding to work with law enforcement to assure "full compliance" with the ruling. 

In the Riley case, a video found on David Riley's cellphone after he was pulled over in a San Diego traffic stop linked him to "gang activity," ultimately resulting in felony convictions. Brima Wurie of Boston was linked to cocaine sales through information on his phone. An appeals court threw out the evidence found on the phone but left in place a drug conviction that did not depend on that evidence. The Obama administration appealed that ruling because it sought to preserve warrantless searches following an arrest. (Jurist, Politico, NPR, June 25)

The decision comes days after an appeals court ruling in Atlanta similarly found for the Fourth Amendment on the related quesiton of whether police need a warrant to get a person's cell phone location history from the service provider. 

Cross-post to High Times

Photo by Hammer51012  

Who's new

  • Baba Israel
  • Karr Young
  • John Veit
  • YosephLeib
  • Peter Gorman