On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that police officers may not search an individual’s cell phone, even after lawful arrest, without first obtaining a search warrant. The decision is one of the first the Court has made addressing privacy concerns in the digital age and is a landmark decision protecting individual privacy rights.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ______ (2014) is actually a consolidated ruling on two different cases. Both underlying cases had the same relevant facts: an individual was lawfully arrested and, pursuant to a search incident to arrest, police officers discovered cell phones on both defendants. After searching through the contents of the phones, evidence was gathered that linked the individuals to other crimes and both men were later convicted, largely due to the evidence gathered from their cell phones.
Even balancing the government’s interest in protecting officer safety and preserving potential evidence contained on cell phones, the Court found the privacy invasion of warrantless cell phone searches too extreme and noted that “more substantial privacy interests are at stake when digital data is involved.” The Court recognized the inherently unique and personal quality of cell phone data, and found the parallel between “inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets” and inspecting an arrestee’s cell phone too tenuous and the privacy implications of a cell phone search to be much greater.
It will be interesting to see how Riley’s impact plays into other personal electronic devices such as iPads and tablet computers, but the Court’s posture toward warrantless searching of personal electronic data is promising. Davis and Jones applaud the Court for their unanimous decision protecting individual privacy rights.
The full opinion can be found at: