Women Criminal Defense Attorneys: Supreme Court Takes up Cell Phone Searches
Hold on to your constitutional fourth amendment seats.
The Supreme Court is taking up two cases which address the issue of warrantless searches of cell phones made pursuant to an arrest. And the rulings on these two cases could conceivably change the fourth amendment landscape for decades to come. The consequences of these cases are much more far reaching then cell phones alone and the significance can’t be stressed enough. On Tuesday April 29, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in both Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie.
The Riley case involves the arrest of David Riley for an expired registration where loaded guns were found in the car – but a thorough search of his cell phone led to information that Riley had been involved in a shooting. Based on that evidence, he was charged and later convicted of attempted murder. The California appeals court said neither search required a warrant. The court compared the search of a cell phone to the evidence found in wallets and personal papers that have long been subject to examination pursuant to an arrest.
The Wurie case involves the warrantless search of Wurie’s flip cell phone’s call logs after an arrest for suspected drug dealing. The federal court in Boston threw out the evidence found on Wurie’s phone. in addition to evidence found at Wurie’s home as a result of the call log search. Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote in the opinion that, “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person.”
The New York Times summarized these cases and in fact participated in the filing of an amicus brief in support of the defendants. Professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University College of Law was quoted in a NBC News article as stating, “computer search and seizure is the new frontier. These are the first cases of many that the Supreme Court will decide in the area, so they’ll be very important for the future of the law.” Scotus Blog wrote a helpful post explaining the issues in plain English.
The consequences of allowing law enforcement unchecked access to the extensive data that people routinely retain on smartphones or computers after an arrest is tantamount to opening up the doors to a defendant’s house for search upon any arrest. I will certainly be waiting for and focusing on the rulings in these two cases and will keep you posted.