PrivacySupreme Court: police must obtain a warrant to search suspect’s cellphone
Earlier this week the Supreme Courtruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search a suspect’s cellphone. Law enforcement argued that no current law makes a distinction between cellphones and the pocket litter (wallets, cigarette packs) which police have always been permitted to search when arresting a suspect, but Chief Justice John Roberts rejected this argument, saying, “That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” adding: . “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.” Roberts acknowledged that requiring police to seek a warrant could impede some investigations but “privacy comes at a cost,” he said.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search a suspect’s cellphone — in effect, protecting privacy rights as digital devices become more integrated with daily activities. Chief Justice John Roberts rejected law enforcement arguments that no current law makes a distinction between cellphones and the pocket litter (wallets, cigarette packs) which police have always been permitted to search when arresting a suspect. “That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” 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,” he added.
Law enforcement agencies have long claimed that warrantless searches can help officers prevent the destruction of evidence; full access to mobile devices, however, can expose information beyond what is related to the arrest or investigation at hand. Roberts acknowledged that mobile devices are critical to today’s criminal operations, as they are for most Americans, and that requiring police to seek a warrant could impede some investigations but “privacy comes at a cost,” he said.
RedOrbit reports that the ruling comes after the court heard two separate cases dealing with the violation of privacy as it pertains to a suspect’s personal mobile device. The first, Riley v. California, involved a vehicle search after police initially pulled a man over for expired tags on his vehicle. Police found loaded handguns, and after searching the man’s cellphone, were able to determine gang affiliation and possible connection to another crime. Riley was convicted and sentenced to multiple years in prison due to evidence found on his cellphone.
In the second case, United States v. Wurie, police used the Massachusetts man’s cellphone to locate his residence and collected more evidence at his house to aid in his conviction after his initial arrest following a suspected drug deal. Wurie’s case was overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that law enforcement officers violated Wurie’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his cellphone without a warrant.
Justice departments throughout the country are now issuing notices for law enforcement officers to adhere to the court’s ruling.
“The department will work with its law-enforcement agencies to ensure full compliance with this decision,” U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Ellen Canale said. “Our commitment to vigorously enforcing the criminal laws and protecting the public while respecting the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is unwavering.”
Roberts noted that in rare events that pose danger to public safety, police can act without a warrant and later defend their actions in court claiming “exigent circumstances,” but in most cases, “our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant,” he wrote.
