Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant

The outcome of these two cases depends on a digital-age interpretation of an 18th century phrase

Topics: Supreme Court, Cell-phones, warrents, 4th amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, technology, , ,

Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant (Credit: trekandshoot via Shutterstock)

Today the Supreme Court is hearing two cases on law enforcement’s ability to search a person’s cellphone without a warrant. It is an important decision in a time where a hand-size device can contain troves of personal data, some of which may or may not be pertinent to a case.

What do these cases mean?

The decisions boil down to the Fourth Amendment: What are “unreasonable searches and seizures”?

The decision could affect a wide swath of the population. The New York Times notes that “12 million people are arrested every year, often for minor offenses, and that about 90 percent of Americans have cellphones.”

Currently, the courts allow law enforcement to do warrantless searches when a person is arrested. For example, if someone is pulled over and a cop has probable cause he might check the car. This is often justified as a way to ensure police safety and avoid the destruction of evidence.

In its entirety the Fourth Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But what about a cellphone? Can a cop flip through your contacts, or browser history or Dropbox without a warrant? Are those “papers” or “effects,” or not?

What cases are being heard?

The two cases being heard are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The first is Riley v. California. In 2009, David L. Riley had an expired car registration, and was pulled over in San Diego. Police also found two loaded guns and text messages that associated him with a gang. A further search of the phone linked him to an attempted murder. He was convicted and received 15 years in prison.

Both the guns and phone were found without a warrant; a California appeals court ruled that the search was like going through a person’s wallet or address book and did not require one.



The second case is United States v. Wurie. Brima Wurie was arrested in Boston in 2007 on drug and gun charges. Officers searched his flip-phone’s call log without a warrant. A Boston federal appeals court threw out the cellphone records as evidence. Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote, “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person.”

And the arguments?

The argument against warrantless cellphone searches states that the vast amount of data on a cellphone is equivalent to a much more invasive search — one that requires a different standard than checking a suspect’s car or wallet.

“The search of a cellphone today can reveal as much about ourselves as the search of a home,” the ACLU’s Steven Shapiro said, according to Mashable. “The police generally need a warrant before they search our homes and they should need a warrant before they search our phones.”

However, law enforcement and Obama administration prosecutors fear that if they have to wait for a warrant, a criminal might have the ability to remotely wipe out cellphone evidence. They also worry that a cellphone could be used as a weapon (for instance to detonate a bomb).

Fixes, including wrapping a phone in tin foil, using a faraday bag or turning the phone to airplane mode, have been suggested as ways to avoid remote destruction of evidence.

h/t New York Times

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 11
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Elliott and the friends with whom he recorded in middle school in Texas (photo courtesy of Dan Pickering)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Heatmiser publicity shot (L-R: Tony Lash, Brandt Peterson, Neil Gust, Elliott Smith) (photo courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Elliott and JJ Gonson (photo courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    "Stray" 7-inch, Cavity Search Records (photo courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Elliott's Hampshire College ID photo, 1987

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Elliott with "Le Domino," the guitar he used on "Roman Candle" (courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Full "Roman Candle" record cover (courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Elliott goofing off in Portland (courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    Heatmiser (L-R: Elliott Smith, Neil Gust, Tony Lash, Brandt Peterson)(courtesy of JJ Gonson photography)

    "Roman Candle" turns 20: Secrets of Elliott Smith's accidental masterpiece (slideshow)

    The Greenhouse Sleeve -- Cassette sleeve from Murder of Crows release, 1988, with first appearance of Condor Avenue (photo courtesy of Glynnis Fawkes)

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

Loading Comments...