Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

‘Get a warrant’ - Supreme Court rules against cell phone searches in 'big win for digital privacy'

Published time: June 25, 2014 16:59
Win McNamee / Getty Images / AFP

Win McNamee / Getty Images / AFP

The Supreme Court of the United States said Wednesday that police officers must have a warrant before searching the cell phone contents of an individual under arrest.

In a unanimous ruling announced early Wednesday, the high court settled two cases surrounding instances in which law enforcement officials scoured the mobile phones of suspects in custody and then used information contained therein to pursue further charges.

“The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested,” the Supreme Court ruled.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience,” the court continued. “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. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.”

Orin Kerr, a Georgetown University law professor who focuses primarily on computer cases, wrote Wednesday morning on his Washington Post-hosted blog that the court’s decision was “a big win for digital privacy.”

“[W]ow, what a day at the Supreme Court,” tweeted Electronic Freedom Foundation special counsel Marcia Hoffman, whose group entered a brief in the case ahead of Wednesday’s ruling. “Wow. You go, Chief Justice Roberts,” she wrote.

Although past events have provided for instances in which it could be argued that law enforcement office may want to search cell phones upon arresting a person in order to preserve evidence or protect their own safety, the court suggested in this week’s ruling that the privacy implications involved with scouring in essence pocket-sized computers cannot be ignored.

“Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon — say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one,” the ruling reads in part.

“The United States and California both suggest that a search of cell phone data might help ensure officer safety in more indirect ways, for example by alerting officers that confederates of the arrestee are headed to the scene,” the court continued, “There is undoubtedly a strong government interest in warning officers about such possibilities, but neither the United States nor California offers evidence to suggest that their concerns are based on actual experience.”

The high court’s decision stems from two cases in which individuals received extended prison sentences due to convictions that may not have been possible had police avoided their respective cell phones to gather evidence. In both instances, a warrant was absent.

In one case, David Riley v California, police stopped the defendant for a minor traffic violation and then, upon inspecting his cell phone without a warrant, came across clues that led them to believe he was involved in a criminal gang. From there, a detective “went through” Riley’s phone “looking for evidence, because . . . gang members will often video themselves with guns or take pictures of themselves with the guns,” the court cited from earlier testimony. As a result of the evidence found on Riley’s phone, he was ultimately charged in connection with a shooting unrelated to the traffic violation, including counts of firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm and attempted murder. His status as a gang member — revealed through the warrantless search — allowed prosecutors to successfully pursue an enhanced sentence of 15 years to life in prison.

In the matter of Brima Wurie v California, that individual was sentenced to 262 months in prison after police seized his phone during an arrest for an attempted drug deal and traced a contact saved on his device with the label “My Home” back to his residence where narcotics and drugs were then seized.

After reviewing three high court precedents concerning the search of items found on individuals being placed under arrest, SCOTUS said scouring the contents of a cell phone is a matter that must be authorized by a warrant.

“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” the court acknowledged. “Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of crim­inal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost. Our holding, of course, is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is instead that a warrant is generally required before such a search, even when a cell phone is seized incident to arrest. Our cases have historically recognized that the warrant requirement is ‘an important working part of our machinery of government,’ not merely ‘an inconvenience to be somehow “weighed” against the claims of police efficiency.’”

“In addition, although the search incident to arrest excep­tion does not apply to cell phones, the continued availability of the ex­igent circumstances exception may give law enforcement a justifica­tion for a warrantless search in particular cases,” the court continued.

Comments (26)

 

John M. Wadsworth 26.06.2014 17:50

ultra vires gubernare 26.06.2014 00:36

If that were true there would have been no need for the judiciary to create the 'mischief rule'. Sorry Benoit, but Mr Wadsworth is correct.

  

So he doesn't know about the "mischief rule" - which he could have Googled. As you know, it was a basic rule (or set of criteria) which common law judges used to "interpret" ; acts of Parliament since the 16th Century. You correctly discern that this judge-made rule shows that the traditional understanding of judicial power included the inherent power to interpret laws.

Kudos .

 

John Dillinger 26.06.2014 17:44

If we must die, let it not be like hogs
Hunted and penned in an inglorious spot,
While round us bark the mad and hungry dogs,
Making their mock at our accursed lot.
If we must die, O let us nobly die,
So that our precious blood may not be shed
In vain; then even the monsters we defy
Shall be constrained to honor us though dead!
O kinsmen we must meet the common foe!
Though far outnumbered let us show us brave,
And for their thousand blows deal one deathblow!
What though before us lies the open grave?
Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!
Claude McKay 1919


 

John Dillinger 26.06.2014 17:43

Claude McKay- wrote that poem for people such as myself- and I am not the only one- who has discovered we are not alone.
And they far outnumber us- they enjoy stealth within the human race and they enjoy a far superior knowledge and science which provides them with greatest of benefits above mankinds lowered conditions of life. We are not alone- and we are not the dominant.

View all comments (26)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us