In the recent case of Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a warrantless search of a cell phone incident to arrest was reasonable. In a major decision for civil rights, the Court held that officers must generally secure a warrant before searching a cell phone.

This ruling combined two separate cases. In the first, Riley was stopped for expired plates, which led to his arrest for driving on a suspended license. During the search incident to arrest, officers found guns, which was valid under the Fourth Amendment. However, they also seized Riley’s smartphone and began going through it without a warrant, eventually finding photos they used to charge him with other crimes.

In the second case, a defendant arrested for selling a small quantity of drugs had his cell phone searched. Officers used the information found to locate and seize larger amounts of drugs from his home. Both defendants challenged the searches as violations of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause. Courts had previously allowed some warrantless searches incident to arrest for officer safety or to prevent destruction of evidence. But the Supreme Court rejected those justifications in this context.

The Court explained that cell phones do not generally pose safety risks, and once in police custody, the risk of evidence destruction is minimal. Concerns about remote wiping or encryption were deemed speculative, and reasonable safeguards could address them.

On the privacy side, the Court emphasized that cell phones are fundamentally different from other items carried on a person. They have massive storage capacity, containing personal photos, emails, and private information that far exceed what could typically be found in someone’s pockets. Thus, privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in warrantless searches.

The Court concluded that if an officer wants to search a cell phone or smartphone, a warrant is required.

The case of Riley v. California is both interesting and straightforward, highlighting the intersection of constitutional law and modern technology. It provides clear guidance for law enforcement and stronger protections for individual privacy. Click here to read it now!

The post Warrant Required for Cell Phone Searches appeared first on Harter & Schottland.