The United States Supreme Court unanimously decided that digital privacy is important and that police generally cannot search your cell phone without a warrant.

The majority opinion in Riley vs. California, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted that cell phones “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.” The decision cited information from a Harris Interactive poll in June, 2013, which found that “nearly three-quarters of smart phone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with 12% admitting that they even use their phones in the shower.”

The decision cited Justice Learned Hand, who stated in 1926 that it is “a totally different thing to search a man’s pockets and use against him what they contain, from ransacking his house for everything that may incriminate him.” Judge Roberts wrote, “If his pockets contain a cell phone, however, that is no longer true. Indeed, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house…”. Roberts continued,

“The term `cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”

Roberts concluded, “Modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse.”

Roberts offered police a simple solution to searching a cell phone after an arrest, “Get a warrant.”

The Court’s opinion acknowledged that the ruling would make it harder for police to fight crime, but said that fact was no excuse for failing to obtain a warrant before conducting searches of cell phones and smart phones.

“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime. Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost.”

Officers still can seize any items which could potentially pose a threat to officer safety or contain evidence of a crime, including a cell phone, as part of a “search incident to arrest.” The decision further allows police to search a cell phone without a warrant in “exigent circumstances,” such as a ticking-bomb scenario or when there’s reason to believe evidence on the phone is about to be erased, wiped or otherwise destroyed.

If you or someone you know has been arrested or charged with a crime, contact our knowledgeable criminal law attorneys today.