Supreme Court Recognizes Privacy Rights of Information Found on Cell Phones
- Tree of Knowledge Research
- Jun 2, 2015
- 4 min read
In today’s digital age, personal privacy is eroding at an ever-increasing rate. With leaks that the NSA’s reach is sinking deeper and deeper into our personal lives, the Supreme Court finally put a partial stop to the wearing of our Constitutionally inferred right to “be left alone.” On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court in Riley v. California, delivered a bold ruling which excited privacy rights activists – holding generally that police must obtain search warrants before searching cell phones of suspects they arrest.
The question the Court considered was whether the police can, without a search warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. In the case, David Riley was stopped by police for driving with expired tags. The officer discovered that Riley’s license was suspended, and impounded his car. Police also discovered firearms in Riley’s car upon an inventory search, and Riley was consequentially arrested. An officer searched Riley after the arrest and discovered items associated with a gang. Thereafter, the officer seized his cell phone and proceeded to access information on Riley’s phone. Police discovered a photograph on his phone, linking Riley to a previous shooting incident. As a result, he was convicted in state court for various crimes associated with the shooting and was sentenced to 15 years. Riley unsuccessfully attempted to moved to suppress the evidence that police obtained from his cell phone, but his motion was denied.
Although Riley’s conviction was upheld on appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that police officers generally could not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from Riley as incident to his arrest. The decision was based on theories in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures and require any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause to warrant a search. The court balanced the intrusion of individual privacy against governmental interests. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered the opinion on the case and noted the role of cell phones in modern life, stating “[Cell phones are] 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 Justice Department argued that cell phones were not significantly different from wallets, purses, and other items, which the Courts have allowed police officers to search during an arrest. Justice Roberts disagreed, noting the “immense storage capacity” of cell phones and other digital containers that allow for “millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos.” Aside from the quantity of records found on a digital device, Justice Roberts also noted the qualitative nature of records found on these devices including “private information never found in a home in any form.” Due to the broad computing powers they wield -- storing personal, sensitive, and even confidential information -- cell phones are to be respected and afforded high protection. As Justice Roberts stated:
Although the data stored on a cell phone is distinguished from physical records by quantity alone, certain types of data are also qualitatively different. An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building. See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___, ___, (2012) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring) ("GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person's public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.").
In support of his argument requiring a warrant for cell phone searches, Justice Roberts referenced the American Revolution, citing the founding fathers distaste for “general warrants” – an instrument that furnished British officers the power to sift through peoples’ homes freely with the goal of compiling evidence of criminal behavior.
Although the Riley decision is a win for digital privacy, the opinion leaves open the question of how this decision will apply to searches of other digital properties including personal computers and cloud computing. In addition, Justice Roberts avoids discussing the “third-party doctrine,” which maintains that any data kept by a third party such as a phone company or email server is fair game for warrantless searches. Despite the questions that are yet to be answered, the Riley decision has proffered a voice to the immense potential for privacy invasion that accompanies searches of digital data. The fact that Justice Roberts compares searching a cell phone with the search of a house signifies how serious the Supreme Court is when it comes to classifying the search of digital devices. Courts have long treated the home as carrying the greatest entitlement to privacy as compared to any other venue – by expressing that a cell phone may be more intrusive than a home search, the Court is embracing the need for clear privacy boundaries in the digital age.
Comments