Police are not justified in searching the cell phones of arrested individuals and only in exceptional cases are they allowed to obtain evidence from the content of a suspect's cell phone.
In a landmark ruling issued Thursday, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to support Americans' digital privacy rights against unwarranted searches on their cell phones, which the justices say are not "another technological convenience." During an arrest, officers can search the suspect's pocket, bag, car trunk or any other physical object within the suspect's reach. Cell phones, however, are a different thing.
"With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life," writes (pdf) Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in his opinion. "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."
The decision stems from two cases, one in San Diego and another in Boston, where the defendants accused the police of illegally obtaining evidence from their smartphones. In 2009, gang member David Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving a car with expired registration. Police inspected his cell phone and found text, photos and videos that led to a homicide conviction. The other case concerns Brima Wurie, who was arrested on drug trafficking charges. Officers were able to obtain evidence against Wurie by tracking his phone's call log, which led them to the suspect's house where they found drugs, guns and ammunition. Both men attested that the police violated their Fourth Amendment rights for seizing private electronic data without a warrant.
Digital privacy rights advocates often criticize the courts for being outdated when it comes to technological issues, but not this time. Justice Roberts says that smartphones, which is what most Americans use these days, contain a vast amount of information that police officers wouldn't have had access to back in the day, such as medical records, banking statements and thousands of personal photos and videos stored in the phone's memory. The government justified the old rule that allowed officers to search the suspect without a warrant to protect the police from hidden weapons and prevent the loss of evidence. However, neither officer harm nor destruction of evidence can justify looking into a person's smartphone without a warrant.
There are special cases, though, that the Court acknowledges, such as when the police have reason to believe that the suspect is texting an accomplice or when the suspect's smartphone contains information about the location of kidnapped persons. In general, however, there's not much an officer can do but wait for a judge to put a stamp of approval on his request for a warrant.
The Court recognizes, though, that protecting the privacy of individuals will affect the swiftness and efficiency of law enforcement.
"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," writes Justice Roberts. "Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous individuals. Privacy comes at a cost."
