In Riley v. California, Supreme Court Rules Police Must Obtain Warrant before Searching Cell Phones

by Foley Hoag LLP - Privacy & Data Security
Contact

In Riley v. California, Supreme Court Rules Police Must Obtain Warrant before Searching Cell Phones

In a unanimous decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot search the cell phones of arrested individuals without a warrant. In reaching its decision, the Court recognized that there is an immense amount of personal information on smart phones and held that access to that information would constitute a significant invasion of individual privacy. With the relatively recent invention of cell phones and the sudden pervasiveness of smart phones in the United States, the Court was forced to grapple with the application of century old legal principles to the practical realties of modern day technology. As the Court stated,

These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, 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.

The Court’s decision stems from two California cases in which the police searched, without a warrant, suspects’ cell phones after arrest and used the call records, messages, videos, and pictures contained on the phones to secure convictions against them.

The Court reached its decision by balancing the government’s interest in officer safety and evidence preservation against the privacy interests of arrested individuals. The Court’s analysis demonstrates an understanding of both the technology involved and practical realities of smart phone use.

First, it is readily apparent that, except in fanciful 24like situations, the data contained in cell phones does not pose a safety risk to police. Moreover, the data on cell phones is not likely to be lost during the time it usually takes the police to obtain a warrant. The Court did, however, address arguments that the data might be lost through remote wiping or data encryption. While there is “little reason to believe that either problem is prevalent,” the Court noted that encrypted phones are usually already locked at the time of arrest, and concerns over remote wiping can be alleviated by disconnecting the phone from the network either though the phone’s settings or the use of bags that block radio waves (commonly referred to as Faraday bags).

Second, the Court, arguably for the first time, held that people have a strong privacy interest in the contents of their cell phones. The Court rejected the argument that searching data stored on a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable from searches of [the] sorts of physical items” usually present on a person, comparing the argument to “saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.” The Court noted that smart phones often contain all of a person’s electronic correspondence going back months or years; photographs and videos labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions; internet search and browsing history; purchase history; and historical GPS coordinates. In addition to this stored information, the Court recognized smart phones provide access to information stored in the cloud: “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate.” It is, of course, settled that the government cannot search someone’s house without a warrant, and to the Supreme Court, “a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.”

The Court’s decision today will likely have implications outside of the context of searches incident to arrest. The right to privacy over electronic information often arises in data breach cases, and, as discussed in the Trademark and Copyright Law blog, today’s decision could impact challenges to the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata on telephone calls within the United States.

- See more at: http://www.securityprivacyandthelaw.com/#sthash.nCMP4iPw.dpuf

In Riley v. California, Supreme Court Rules Police Must Obtain Warrant before Searching Cell Phones

In a unanimous decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot search the cell phones of arrested individuals without a warrant. In reaching its decision, the Court recognized that there is an immense amount of personal information on smart phones and held that access to that information would constitute a significant invasion of individual privacy. With the relatively recent invention of cell phones and the sudden pervasiveness of smart phones in the United States, the Court was forced to grapple with the application of century old legal principles to the practical realties of modern day technology. As the Court stated,

These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, 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.

The Court’s decision stems from two California cases in which the police searched, without a warrant, suspects’ cell phones after arrest and used the call records, messages, videos, and pictures contained on the phones to secure convictions against them.

The Court reached its decision by balancing the government’s interest in officer safety and evidence preservation against the privacy interests of arrested individuals. The Court’s analysis demonstrates an understanding of both the technology involved and practical realities of smart phone use.

First, it is readily apparent that, except in fanciful 24like situations, the data contained in cell phones does not pose a safety risk to police. Moreover, the data on cell phones is not likely to be lost during the time it usually takes the police to obtain a warrant. The Court did, however, address arguments that the data might be lost through remote wiping or data encryption. While there is “little reason to believe that either problem is prevalent,” the Court noted that encrypted phones are usually already locked at the time of arrest, and concerns over remote wiping can be alleviated by disconnecting the phone from the network either though the phone’s settings or the use of bags that block radio waves (commonly referred to as Faraday bags).

Second, the Court, arguably for the first time, held that people have a strong privacy interest in the contents of their cell phones. The Court rejected the argument that searching data stored on a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable from searches of [the] sorts of physical items” usually present on a person, comparing the argument to “saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.” The Court noted that smart phones often contain all of a person’s electronic correspondence going back months or years; photographs and videos labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions; internet search and browsing history; purchase history; and historical GPS coordinates. In addition to this stored information, the Court recognized smart phones provide access to information stored in the cloud: “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate.” It is, of course, settled that the government cannot search someone’s house without a warrant, and to the Supreme Court, “a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.”

The Court’s decision today will likely have implications outside of the context of searches incident to arrest. The right to privacy over electronic information often arises in data breach cases, and, as discussed in the Trademark and Copyright Law blog, today’s decision could impact challenges to the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata on telephone calls within the United States.

- See more at: http://www.securityprivacyandthelaw.com/#sthash.nCMP4iPw.dpuf

In a unanimous decision issued last week, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot search the cell phones of arrested individuals without a warrant. In reaching its decision, the Court recognized that there is an immense amount of personal information on smart phones and held that access to that information would constitute a significant invasion of individual privacy. With the relatively recent invention of cell phones and the sudden pervasiveness of smart phones in the United States, the Court was forced to grapple with the application of century old legal principles to the practical realties of modern day technology. As the Court stated,

These cases require us to decide how the search incident to arrest doctrine applies to modern cell phones, 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.

The Court’s decision stems from two California cases in which the police searched, without a warrant, suspects’ cell phones after arrest and used the call records, messages, videos, and pictures contained on the phones to secure convictions against them.

The Court reached its decision by balancing the government’s interest in officer safety and evidence preservation against the privacy interests of arrested individuals. The Court’s analysis demonstrates an understanding of both the technology involved and practical realities of smart phone use.

First, it is readily apparent that, except in fanciful 24like situations, the data contained in cell phones does not pose a safety risk to police. Moreover, the data on cell phones is not likely to be lost during the time it usually takes the police to obtain a warrant. The Court did, however, address arguments that the data might be lost through remote wiping or data encryption. While there is “little reason to believe that either problem is prevalent,” the Court noted that encrypted phones are usually already locked at the time of arrest, and concerns over remote wiping can be alleviated by disconnecting the phone from the network either though the phone’s settings or the use of bags that block radio waves (commonly referred to as Faraday bags).

Second, the Court, arguably for the first time, held that people have a strong privacy interest in the contents of their cell phones. The Court rejected the argument that searching data stored on a cell phone is “materially indistinguishable from searches of [the] sorts of physical items” usually present on a person, comparing the argument to “saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.” The Court noted that smart phones often contain all of a person’s electronic correspondence going back months or years; photographs and videos labeled with dates, locations, and descriptions; internet search and browsing history; purchase history; and historical GPS coordinates. In addition to this stored information, the Court recognized smart phones provide access to information stored in the cloud: “[I]t is no exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate.” It is, of course, settled that the government cannot search someone’s house without a warrant, and to the Supreme Court, “a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.”

The Court’s decision will likely have implications outside of the context of searches incident to arrest. The right to privacy over electronic information often arises in data breach cases, and, as discussed in the Trademark and Copyright Law blog, today’s decision could impact challenges to the NSA’s bulk collection of metadata on telephone calls within the United States.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Foley Hoag LLP - Privacy & Data Security | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Foley Hoag LLP - Privacy & Data Security
Contact
more
less

Foley Hoag LLP - Privacy & Data Security on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!