Supreme Court: Police Must Have Warrant To Search Cellphones
In a decision that marks a major victory for privacy advocates, the Supreme Court ruled today that police cannot search cellphones or smartphones without a warrant, USA Today reports.
The court voted unanimously to restrict the ability of police to search cellphones, while hearing two cases from California and Massachusetts. The court overturned the use of an “extensive” search of a smartphone that had been upheld by a California court of appeals. The Massachusetts probe, which involved a search of an older cellphone belonging to Brima Wurie, had already been thrown out by a federal judge.
“Privacy comes at a cost,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, acknowledging that the decision would have “an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime.”
Though police can search individuals under arrest and physical items within reach, the Supreme Court justices noted that cellphones are unique when compared to other items because of the vast amount of personal data that they may contain. The court also differentiated between a cellphone itself and the data it contains, asserting that while police have the right to inspect a cellphone to make sure that it cannot be used as a weapon, the “data on the phone can endanger no one.”
The court also pointed out that a person under arrest would be prevented from deleting incriminating data, which may be inspected later.
According to The New York Times, Judge Norman H. Stah, who wrote the opinion for Wurie’s case, quoted the words of the fourth amendment in saying “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person.”
Privacy rights advocates contend that this fact necessitates a different standard for the way in which cellphones are handled as evidence.
Evolving technology and social media have regularly pushed the boundaries of legal standards for privacy. As The Inquisitr previously reported, the American Bar Association ruled that it is ethical for lawyers to view the social media profiles of jurors, as long as they are restricted to publicly available writings.
Roberts noted in his opinion the ubiquitous nature of cellphones in American society, contending that “the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”
Nine in 10 adults in the United States own cellphones, more than half of which are smartphones, facts which give the court’s ruling an added dimension.
Stating that “The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed” from the data found on cellphones, the Supreme Court justices added that “the same cannot be said of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.”
[Images via Fox News and The Washington Times]
