Supreme Court limits police right to search cell phones

[Borgholio]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 5343.story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that police officers usually need a warrant before they can search an arrested suspect's cellphone.

The court said on a 9-0 vote in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts that the right of police to search an arrested suspect at the scene without a warrant does not extend in most circumstances to data held on a cellphone. There are some emergency situations in which a warrantless search would be permitted, the court noted.

The ruling is a blow to law enforcement agencies that would prefer more latitude to search without having to obtain a warrant.

"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote.

The right to privacy, he said, "comes at a cost."

The court was weighing two separate cases that pitted evolving expectations of privacy against the interests of the law enforcement community as the court for the first time weighed the increasingly ubiquitous role of cellphones in modern day life.

The defendants challenging their convictions, David Riley and Brima Wurie, said evidence found on their phones should not have been used at trial because the searches were conducted without court-issued warrants.

The circumstances in the two cases, one from Massachusetts and one from California, were different, both in terms of the scope of the search and the type of cellphone used. Wurie had a basic flip phone while Riley had a more sophisticated smartphone.

The court decided the two cases together, finding that both searches were unconstitutional.

The legal question was whether the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches, requires police following an arrest to get court approval before a cellphone can be searched.

The cases are Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212.

Excellent. Now they just have to apply this to the NSA...

[Wing Commander MAD]

Damn, unanimous too. I think this may be the first SCotUS ruling I've heard about in a long time that wasn't followed by an "Oh, God help us!"

[Borgholio]

I think this may be the first SCotUS ruling I've heard about in a long time that wasn't followed by an "Oh, God help us!"

Actually law enforcement is having a stroke right now. But I can live with that.

[Highlord Laan]

Now this ruling needs to be used as precedent for shutting down the use of Stingray.

[Simon_Jester]

This seems to

Doing some cursory research, the existing case law was based on a 1969 ruling that if police arrest someone, they automatically can search the body of that person and "the area into which he might reach," without a warrant. The intent being to make sure the officers are safe (from concealed weapons) and that any physical evidence is preserved. So if the police pull me (or Riley) over for a routine stop, and see something untoward in the car (like loaded firearms) that causes them to arrest me, they are entitled to perform a warrantless search of the car itself.

So in effect, the question is, how detailed a search? What seems to have happened in Riley is that the police opened up his phone and went "gee, this guy has Jimmy the Weasel on his speed dial and texted "Im goin 2 kill him" three hours before John Doe got shot on 37th Street." The Court's ruling is that this is going too far. Before the police are allowed to check your phone to fish for evidence of crimes, they have to get a warrant from a judge and therefore justify their suspicion.

Now, here's a set of related test cases:

1) Suppose the police find my cell phone. Are they allowed to take the phone into custody at all, and search it later?

My response is "I sure hope so," because that falls under the aegis of the 1969 ruling: police taking over the materials to preserve material evidence, even if they need a warrant to search it.

2) Suppose the police find a book in my car, or a box of papers. Are they entitled to read the book or the papers without a warrant?

My response is "no," because it's precisely analogous to Riley. See, a phone may contain confidential information, and the contents of the phone are not relevant to the immediate "we've just arrested this man, search him and his effects to secure evidence and ensure our safety" mission of the warrantless search. But a box of papers can be just as confidential and reveal just as much such information.

3) Suppose the police see a paper in plain sight, or a phone display likewise that is active. Are they entitled to read that?

I'd argue yes, because, well, plain sight.

[Replicant]

To be honest I this will not change much. The police will still search seized phones as much as possible. IF they find something useful then they will begin the mental gymnastics as they try to find a reason to do that search.

[Ahriman238]

And the ACLU is rubbing it's hands at the thought of tearing down those gymnastics performances.

[Simon_Jester]

If the police get a warrant they're covered. Otherwise, yeah, when there's an explicit Supreme Court ruling saying "you can't do this," and you do this, you're in for it.

[bilateralrope]

To be honest I this will not change much. The police will still search seized phones as much as possible. IF they find something useful then they will begin the mental gymnastics as they try to find a reason to do that search.

How hard would it be for the police to get a warrant ?

If it's easy enough, then they will just hold the phone till they get one. Much simpler.

[White Haven]

That's what I have always had trouble understanding about cases like this, something I've ranted about before. Why the fuck, if you're a cop working on a case against someone you believe is a seriously bad dude, WHY would you take the risk of trying to avoid getting a warrant? If a judge disagrees with you after the fact, your case falls apart, all because you wanted to take shortcuts. By that point, you've poisoned the well, the whole thing's public, your entire case against your suspect is tainted and a media circus, good luck ever finding a jury that hasn't been biased by news coverage, problems all over the place. Get a fucking warrant. If the judge says no to that, then you still haven options because you haven't fucked the pooch by trying to do an end-run.

Seriously. Since when is 'get a goddamned warrant' such an onerous burden to begin with?

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's what I have always had trouble understanding about cases like this, something I've ranted about before. Why the fuck, if you're a cop working on a case against someone you believe is a seriously bad dude, WHY would you take the risk of trying to avoid getting a warrant? If a judge disagrees with you after the fact, your case falls apart, all because you wanted to take shortcuts. By that point, you've poisoned the well, the whole thing's public, your entire case against your suspect is tainted and a media circus, good luck ever finding a jury that hasn't been biased by news coverage, problems all over the place. Get a fucking warrant. If the judge says no to that, then you still haven options because you haven't fucked the pooch by trying to do an end-run.

Seriously. Since when is 'get a goddamned warrant' such an onerous burden to begin with?

Well, it would depend on the jurisdiction in which you work. Getting a warrant can take hours. That is quickly becoming a thing of the past with the adoption of e-warrants. Prior to e-warrants they had judges on call for quick issuing.

I agree with you though. It doesn't matter even if it does take two hours. It's better that they get away when you do things the right way versus they get away because you fucked up.

[Replicant]

To be honest I this will not change much. The police will still search seized phones as much as possible. IF they find something useful then they will begin the mental gymnastics as they try to find a reason to do that search.

How hard would it be for the police to get a warrant ?

If it's easy enough, then they will just hold the phone till they get one. Much simpler.

Without a good reason it can be quite difficult. On the other hand searching the phone in advance and info on the phone giving them where to search for other evidence that would then make a warrant easier to get could be the route used even if it is illegal as hell.

This will make for an interesting game. So the police can seize my phone and "hold" it until they find a reason to search it. They better remember to turn my phone off immediately, otherwise they are going to be sorely disappointed when I go online and remotely reset my phone to factory defaults.

[Replicant]

That's what I have always had trouble understanding about cases like this, something I've ranted about before. Why the fuck, if you're a cop working on a case against someone you believe is a seriously bad dude, WHY would you take the risk of trying to avoid getting a warrant? If a judge disagrees with you after the fact, your case falls apart, all because you wanted to take shortcuts. By that point, you've poisoned the well, the whole thing's public, your entire case against your suspect is tainted and a media circus, good luck ever finding a jury that hasn't been biased by news coverage, problems all over the place. Get a fucking warrant. If the judge says no to that, then you still haven options because you haven't fucked the pooch by trying to do an end-run.

Seriously. Since when is 'get a goddamned warrant' such an onerous burden to begin with?

Years ago when police switched from a "serve and protect" mentality to an "us vs them' mentality they also switched to the thought process that ANYTHING that limited their ability to climb up your ass at their convenience as onerous.

Remember these are the same people that feel that the word of a single Confidential Informant is enough justification to have a SWAT team make a no knock stormtrooper assault on your house at 3am.