This site is part of the Global Exhibitions Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067.

Police Must ‘Get a Warrant’ to Search Mobile Devices
By Josh Long
June 25, 2014 - News

Convicted felon David Riley, whose smartphone held photographs that led police to suspect him in a shooting, has reason to be cheerful today.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that authorities generally need a search warrant before they can scour the contents of a cell phone. The court overturned a judgment of the California Court of Appeals, which had affirmed a trial court ruling that the search did not violate Riley’s Fourth Amendment rights.

“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," Chief Justice John Roberts concluded in the opinion. “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to arrest is accordingly simple – get a warrant."

The Fourth Amendment requires warrants for searches and seizures, although the Supreme Court has carved out a number of exceptions over the years. For a century, the court has acknowledged the right of police to search a person being arrested, without a warrant. And such a right has been extended to include searches within the immediate area of a person who has been arrested to protect officers and prevent the destruction of evidence.

Commenting on the modern era, Roberts characterized the wireless phone as “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy."

But in weighing the intrusion of a person’s privacy against the extent to which warrantless searches are needed to promote legitimate government interests, Roberts noted the absence of harm to officers in connection with the search of digital data on a cell phone.

“Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats … data on the phone can endanger no one," Roberts wrote.

« Previous12Next »
comments powered by Disqus
Related News
A single policy or measure may not be sufficient while developing future BYOD strategies.
Craig Galbraith
Unified communications – whether premises-based or delivered as a cloud-based
Khali Henderson
One analyst is less than thrilled about the just-released devices.
The company launched a website this week that's optimized for iOS, Android and BlackBerry screens.
With the launch of Sprint One Up, Sprint is finally aboard the early upgrade train.
Daniel Santa Cruz