Last Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases with cellphone searches at the center. The issue: Should law enforcement officers be allowed to search cell phones upon arrest of a suspect without a warrant? The decision will affect the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Two Convictions from Cell Phone Information
In 2009, David Riley was pulled over in San Diego for expired tags on his car. Police officers discovered guns under the hood when they impounded the car, leading to Riley’s arrest. Officers then searched his smartphone and found photos and videos implicating Riley in gang activities, including a drive-by shooting. He was subsequently sentenced to 15 years.
Brima Wurie was arrested in 2007 in Boston for selling crack from his car. Using information gathered from Wurie’s flip phone, police officers were led to a house containing drugs and guns. Wurie was sentenced to 22 years. The First Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned that conviction.
Both original convictions were due to evidence obtained from cell phones upon arrest. David Riley filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court last July, hoping that the Court will rule in his favor and prevent law enforcement officers from taking information from cell phones without a warrant. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, asked the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2013 to hear the Wurie case, hoping to overturn the lower court’s decision and uphold the right of officers to obtain and use cell phone information without a warrant.
Officers Can Perform Limited Warrantless Searches
Law enforcement officers have long been able to perform searches without a warrant at the time of a suspect’s arrest. These searches have been limited to what is on the suspect’s person and nearby items such as purses and wallets. These searches are meant to ensure the officer’s safety (so that a suspect cannot harm the officer with a hidden weapon, for example) and to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Those in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to search cell phones for information without a warrant include many people in law enforcement and federal and state governments. They argue that cell phones can contain a lot of valuable information that could aid in an officer’s job.
Those against believe that’s the issue at hand: cell phones contain so much information, in many instances much more than would be present in a person’s wallet and date diary. Allowing warrantless searches of cell phones would be intrusive and overstep the bounds set by the Fourth Amendment, making such a search “unreasonable.” Furthermore, because cell phones cannot be used as a weapon on an officer, and because Faraday bags can prevent a phone from being tampered with, the arguments for allowing such a search are unjustified.
Supreme Court Justices’ Viewpoints in the Riley Case
The arguments in the Riley case show how the Justices are approaching these issue. Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan all noted the difference in sheer amount of information on a cell phone: instead of, say, five family photos in a wallet, an officer could find hundreds or even thousands of photos stored on a phone. Phones often carry other sensitive information as well, including health and financial information.
The prosecution argued that the amount of material may have changed, but the nature of that material has not, and therefore it is not unconstitutional to allow such a search.
The defense noted that a phone’s contents could also be downloaded and put in a database for future use, as there are not currently limits on how that information must be handled. Justice Scalia suggested that the material be used as evidence for the crime at the center of that arrest only.
Justice Ginsburg said that the Court must fashion a rule applicable to everyone, not just Riley.
Decisions for both cases are expected in late June.
