• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Unanimous SCOTUS Strikes Warrantless Cellpohne Searches

Cylinder

Philosopher
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,062
Location
Arkansas
Supreme Court says police must get warrants for most cellphone searches

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the cellphone of someone they arrest, saying it was applying to modern technology the same privacy rights that date back to the nation’s birth.

Modern cellphones “hold for many Americans the privacies of life,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, in a sweeping opinion that seemed to contain warnings about the government’s ability to monitor the private lives of its citizens.

“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,” he wrote.

Roberts said that in most cases when police seize a cellphone from a suspect, the answer is simple: “Get a warrant.”



From the SCOTUS Blog analysis:

The Court rejected every argument made to it by prosecutors and police that officers should be free to inspect the contents of any cellphone taken from an arrestee. It left open just one option for such searches without a court order: if police are facing a dire emergency, such as trying to locate a missing child or heading off a terrorist plot. But even then, it ruled, those “exigent” exceptions to the requirement for a search warrant would have to satisfy a judge after the fact.

The ruling was such a sweeping embrace of digital privacy that it even reached remotely stored private information that can be reached by a hand-held device — as in the modern-day data storage “cloud.” And it implied that the tracking data that a cellphone may contain about the places that an individual visited also is entitled to the same shield of privacy.



Chief Justice Roberts, delivering the Court's opinion in Riley v. California:

Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee’s person. Notably, modern cell phones have an immense storage capacity. Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow intrusion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone’s capacity allows even just one type of information to convey far more than previously possible. Third, data on the phone can date back for years. In addition, an element of pervasiveness characterizes cell phones but not physical records. A decade ago officers might have occasionally stumbled across a highly personal item such as a diary, but today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.

The scope of the privacy interests at stake is further complicated by the fact that the data viewed on many modern cell phones may in fact be stored on a remote server. Thus, a search may extend well beyond papers and effects in the physical proximity of an arrestee, a concern that the United States recognizes but cannot definitively foreclose.
 
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?

If the answers to the above questions are no, what's the difference between a diary/address book & a mobile phone?
 
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?

If the answers to the above questions are no, what's the difference between a diary/address book & a mobile phone?

You made a huge leap from pockets to mobile storage devices.
 
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?

If the answers to the above questions are no, what's the difference between a diary/address book & a mobile phone?
You see, in the US, there are 3 branches to the Government.
The legislative MAKES laws
The Executive CARRIES them out
The Judicial INTERPRETS them
All Branches are (supposedly) equal. The Interpreters just ruled on this issue.
It's against the *********** LAW, as the SCOTUS just said.
 
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
No, they are allowed to search those areas for weapons to ensure safety of the officer and any bystanders.
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?
Yes, or they can ask for consent. Often the asking for consent is in a rather forceful manner, which may or may not be legal in itself.
 
Last edited:
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to search an arrestees pockets/handbag?
Would a police officer need to get a warrant to then examine a diary/address book found in an arrestees pocket/handbag?

If the answers to the above questions are no, what's the difference between a diary/address book & a mobile phone?

I'd argue that the fine details of a diary wouldn't be searchable subsequent to a inventory/public safety search of an impounded vehicle. The police would probably have the legitimate power to flip the pages to look for $100 bills to inventory and certainly could notice the pipe bomb schematic I might have drawn on page 10, but the details of the words themselves would seem to me to require a warrant to search.

Chief Justice Roberts deals with that issue, citing the proliferation of phones used as data storage devices. One example given by the court was a politically active person would likely to have data that identifies those activities readily accessible to the police. Think of an average person's internet history stored on their phone -- many members here use mobile data devices to conduct what would be considered political activism. Likewise details of association.
 
You made a huge leap from pockets to mobile storage devices.

I was trying to compare a diary/address book with a mobile phone, not a pocket.

A mobile phone could be found in an arrestees pocket/handbag, I'm just asking if an police officer found a mobile phone or an address book/diary in an arrestees pocket/handbag, would he need a warrant to examine either?

Godmark2 has clarified that - he said that they would.

rwguin said:
You see, in the US, there are 3 branches to the Government.
The legislative MAKES laws
The Executive CARRIES them out
The Judicial INTERPRETS them
All Branches are (supposedly) equal. The Interpreters just ruled on this issue.
It's against the *********** LAW, as the SCOTUS just said.

No need to get snippy, I was asking a question to which I didn't know the answer.
 
The Obama administration has been yet again unanimously benchslapped by SCOTUS. :D
 
Technology has changed, and now everyone carries with them a large fraction of "their papers", in 4th Amendment terms, so government needs a proper warrant to search it even if it's with you.

Quite frankly, the wording of the 4th, "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects", not seeing why papers is tied exclusively to houses instead of also to your person.
 
Glad to see this common-sense ruling. As I said, cell phones are more akin to personal computers now than to telephones, and should be treated as such. The capacity for police to expand searches nearly infinitely via a smartphone would, without this ruling, become very troubling. Plus, as the court said, given how much many people use their smartphones there really is no difference between searching those phones and ransacking their house in terms of legal paperwork, banking paperwork, and other such activities. I deal with the DMV via the internet; if I had a smartphone, it'd likely be on that. Searching smartphones is the equivalent of searching a person's personal documetns without just cause, and it's fantastic that the court acknowledged that in such a big way.
 
No, they are allowed to search those areas for weapons to ensure safety of the officer and any bystanders.
Yes, or they can ask for consent. Often the asking for consent is in a rather forceful manner, which may or may not be legal in itself.

One of the odd anomalies of U.S. law is that police officers are required to inform you of your Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination before they question you, but have no similar obligation to inform you of your Fourth Amendment right to refuse a search. In a traffic stop, it often goes something like,
"Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?".
"No, sir."
"Mind if I take a look?".

If you consent to a search, the police can use anything they find as evidence against you. If you don't, and they can't get a warrant to search your car, any search they conduct (with some exceptions, i. e., they are allowed to check for weapons within your reach, and anything illegal in "plain view" can be used), is illegal, and evidence obtained in an illegal search can't be used as evidence against you in court.

However, there is no restriction on the police tricking or intimidating you into "consenting" to a search.
 

Back
Top Bottom