Supreme Court Delivers Sweeping Ruling For Cell Phone Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sweeping ruling in favor of digital privacy rights, deciding unanimously that police officers generally need a warrant to search a person’s cell phone once they arrest them.

“The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, saying warrantless searches are only acceptable in specific exigent circumstances such as if a bomb was expected to detonate.

“This is a sweeping endorsement of digital privacy,” Tom Goldstein, an appellate and Supreme Court lawyer, wrote at SCOTUSblog.

The justices said digital data on a cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm the officer and that “today many of the more than 90% of American adults who own cell phones keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives.”

The Court sought to strike a careful balance between liberty and security concerns.

“It is true that this decision will have some impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” Roberts wrote. “But the Court’s holding is not that the information on a cell phone is immune from search; it is that a warrant is generally required before a search.”

Remarkably, all nine justices agreed on the ruling. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate opinion concurring with the outcome but outlining his own reasons.

The ruling melded two cases: Riley v. California, brought by a man who was stopped by a cop for driving with expired registration tags, and United States v. Wurie, brought my a man who was arrested while under surveillance for a suspected drug sale. Both men had their cell phones seized and searched.

In the end, the justices were mindful of the fact that modern cell phones are deeply personal and powerful devices. “These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones,” Roberts wrote, “which are now such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.”

Riley v. California & US. v. Wurie

Dear Reader,

When we asked recently what makes TPM different from other outlets, readers cited factors like honesty, curiosity, transparency, and our vibrant community. They also pointed to our ability to report on important stories and trends long before they are picked up by mainstream outlets; our ability to contextualize information within the arc of history; and our focus on the real-world consequences of the news.

Our unique approach to reporting and presenting the news, however, wouldn’t be possible without our readers’ support. That’s not just marketing speak, it’s true: our work would literally not be possible without readers deciding to become members. Not only does member support account for more than 80% of TPM’s revenue, our members have helped us build an engaged and informed community. Many of our best stories were born from reader tips and valuable member feedback.

We do what other news outlets can’t or won’t do because our members’ support gives us real independence.

If you enjoy reading TPM and value what we do, become a member today.

Latest Dc
Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporters:
Newswriters:
Director of Audience:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: