WASHINGTON (AP) — In a strong
defense of digital age privacy, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled
Wednesday that police may not generally search the cellphones of people
they arrest without first getting search warrants.
Cellphones are
powerful devices unlike anything else police may find on someone they
arrest, Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court. Because the
phones contain so much information, police must get a warrant before
looking through them, Roberts said.
"Modern
cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all
they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the
privacies of life," Roberts said.
The court chose not to extend
earlier rulings that allow police to empty a suspect's pockets and
examine whatever they find to ensure officers' safety and prevent the
destruction of evidence.The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.
But
the defendants in these cases, backed by civil libertarians, librarians
and news media groups, argued that cellphones, especially smartphones,
are increasingly powerful computers that can store troves of sensitive
personal information.
In the cases decided Wednesday, one defendant carried a smartphone, while the other carried an older flip phone.
Roberts said the comparison to packages of cigarettes and other items that were at issue in the earlier cases is not apt.
A
ride on horseback and a flight to the moon both "are ways of getting
from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them
together," he said.
Authorities concerned about the destruction of
evidence can take steps to prevent the remote erasure of a phone's
contents or the activation of encryption, Roberts said.One exception to the warrant requirement left open by the decision is a case in which officers reasonably fear for their safety or the lives of others.
The two cases arose following arrests in San Diego and Boston.
In
San Diego, police found indications of gang membership when they looked
through defendant David Leon Riley's Samsung smartphone. Prosecutors
used video and photographs found on the smartphone to persuade a jury to
convict Riley of attempted murder and other charges. California courts
rejected Riley's efforts to throw out the evidence and upheld the
convictions.
The court ordered the California Supreme Court to take a new look at Riley's case.In Boston, a federal appeals court ruled that police must have a warrant before searching arrestees' cellphones.
Police
arrested Brima Wurie on suspicion of selling crack cocaine, checked the
call log on his flip phone and used that information to determine where
he lived. When they searched Wurie's home and had a warrant, they found
crack, marijuana, a gun and ammunition. The evidence was enough to
produce a conviction and a prison term of more than 20 years.
The
appeals court ruled for Wurie, but left in place a drug conviction for
selling cocaine near a school that did not depend on the tainted
evidence. That conviction also carried a 20-year sentence. The
administration appealed the court ruling because it wants to preserve
the warrantless searches following arrest.
The justices upheld that ruling. LINK
Posts
