The Supreme Court Just Delivered a Huge Victory to Cell-Phone Privacy

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that police generally need a warrant before searching a person’s cell phone.

People use smartphones to photograph the Nicholas K show during the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Fall 2013 collections on February 7, 2013.
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
June 25, 2014, 6:42 a.m.

In a sur­pris­ingly force­ful de­cision, the Su­preme Court on Wed­nes­day un­an­im­ously ruled that po­lice may not search the di­git­al con­tents of an ar­res­ted per­son’s cell phone be­fore ob­tain­ing a war­rant.

The sweep­ing opin­ion is seen by pri­vacy ad­voc­ates as a sub­stan­tial vic­tory in the fight against gov­ern­ment’s tight­en­ing grip on the private, di­git­al com­mu­nic­a­tions of U.S. cit­izens, and could be a pre­curs­or to how the Court handles oth­er ques­tions re­gard­ing gov­ern­ment sur­veil­lance, an is­sue that has been at the fore­front of in­ter­na­tion­al policy de­bates since the Ed­ward Snowden leaks first sur­faced last June.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writ­ing for the Court, said the con­tents of a per­son’s phone are pro­tec­ted un­der the Fourth Amend­ment and must be treated as dif­fer­ent in “a quant­it­at­ive and qual­it­at­ive sense” from oth­er, non-di­git­al per­son­al items.

“Mod­ern cell phones are not just an­oth­er tech­no­lo­gic­al con­veni­ence,” Roberts wrote. “The fact that tech­no­logy now al­lows an in­di­vidu­al to carry such in­form­a­tion in his hand does not make the in­form­a­tion any less worthy of the pro­tec­tion for which the Founders fought. Our an­swer to the ques­tion of what po­lice must do be­fore search­ing a cell phone seized in­cid­ent to an ar­rest is ac­cord­ingly simple — get a war­rant.”

In a pair of re­lated cases be­fore the Court, one in­volving a smart­phone and an­oth­er a flip phone, state pro­sec­utors and the Justice De­part­ment had ar­gued that po­lice need to be able to search cell phones and po­ten­tially oth­er per­son­al elec­tron­ic devices to ob­tain the evid­ence needed to thwart crim­in­al plots and catch sus­pects. But a wide swath of pri­vacy ad­voc­ates pushed back, say­ing that the vast amount of con­tent typ­ic­ally stored on a per­son’s phone could, if searched without a war­rant, rep­res­ent a siz­able, in­trus­ive breach in­to one’s private life.

The Court did note that some case-by-case ex­cep­tions to the war­rant re­quire­ment may ap­ply, such as dur­ing “ex­i­gent” or press­ing cir­cum­stances wherein an ar­rest­ing of­ficer’s safety is in jeop­ardy.

In a con­cur­ring opin­ion, con­ser­vat­ive Justice Samuel Alito said the tech­no­lo­gic­al de­mands of today called for “a new bal­an­cing of law en­force­ment and pri­vacy in­terests.” But Alito ad­ded that he would prefer le­gis­latures were giv­en more au­thor­ity in cre­at­ing rules to lim­it the war­rant re­quire­ment in spe­cial cases.

“We should not mech­an­ic­ally ap­ply the rule used in the pre­di­git­al era to the search of a cell phone,” Alito wrote. “Many cell phones now in use are cap­able of stor­ing and ac­cess­ing a quant­ity of in­form­a­tion, some highly per­son­al, that no per­son would ever have had on his per­son in hard-copy form.”

But the Court also re­cog­nized the po­ten­tial for its rul­ing to hamper po­lice activ­ity. Found­a­tion­al pri­vacy rights, however, must re­main para­mount, the justices reasoned.

“It is true that this de­cision will have some im­pact on the abil­ity of law en­force­ment to com­bat crime,” states the Court’s sum­mary of the opin­ions. “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.”

The Fourth Amend­ment pro­tects Amer­ic­ans from un­reas­on­able searches, which typ­ic­ally ex­tends to items con­sidered per­son­al prop­erty. But dec­ades of jur­is­pru­dence have gran­ted law-en­force­ment of­fi­cials the nar­row right to search a sus­pect and the area with­in his reach “from in­cid­ent to ar­rest.”

Those dec­ades-old stand­ards, however, were craf­ted long be­fore cell phones be­came ubi­quit­ous, or even ex­is­ted at all, and were largely in­ten­ded to pre­vent a sus­pect from des­troy­ing evid­ence or us­ing a nearby weapon.

Pri­vacy ad­voc­ates quickly cheered the de­cision and said it rep­res­ents a paradigm-shift in how pri­vacy con­cerns are be­ing con­sidered in Wash­ing­ton.

“The de­bate on pri­vacy is clearly chan­ging in a dra­mat­ic fash­ion, and 2014 has shown that in a num­ber of ways,” said Har­ley Gei­ger, seni­or coun­sel for the Cen­ter for Demo­cracy & Tech­no­logy, not­ing the House’s pas­sage of a gov­ern­ment-sur­veil­lance re­form bill as a re­cent ex­ample. “The Su­preme Court’s opin­ion re­cog­nizes that … the qual­ity and quant­ity of di­git­al in­form­a­tion that we carry around with us is dif­fer­ent than phys­ic­al in­form­a­tion, and is de­serving of rules that re­cog­nize those dif­fer­ences.”

Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Chair­man Patrick Leahy also hailed the de­cision. In a state­ment, the Ver­mont Demo­crat called the rul­ing “a wake-up call that we need to up­date our laws to keep pace with tech­no­lo­gic­al ad­vances” while not­ing the same war­rant-first stand­ard should ad­di­tion­ally be ap­plied to gov­ern­ment searches of email com­mu­nic­a­tions, a cause he has cham­pioned with le­gis­la­tion that would up­date the Elec­tron­ic Com­mu­nic­a­tions Pri­vacy Act.

Be­fore Tues­day’s rul­ing, state and fed­er­al courts were frac­tured on when a war­rant was needed to rum­mage through a sus­pect’s cell phone “from in­cid­ent to ar­rest” and what con­tents should be al­low­able or off lim­its for au­thor­it­ies to search.

But in back-to-back or­al ar­gu­ments on a pair of re­lated cases the Court heard in April, justices ap­peared torn on wheth­er to draw a line on war­rant­less searches, and ex­pressed frus­tra­tion at the chal­lenges of de­term­in­ing where that line should be in the ever-chan­ging tech­no­lo­gic­al land­scape.

Lib­er­al Justice Elena Kagan most vo­cally raised pri­vacy con­cerns dur­ing ar­gu­ments, not­ing that po­lice could ar­rest someone for driv­ing without a seat belt and then pro­ceed to look through the en­tire con­tents of that sus­pect’s phone.

The two cases be­fore the Court were joined in­to one de­cision. Ri­ley v. Cali­for­nia asked the Court to con­sider wheth­er state po­lice erred in 2009 when search­ing a San Diego man’s smart­phone twice — once at the scene of the ar­rest and again at the po­lice pre­cinct — be­fore ob­tain­ing a war­rant. Its com­pan­ion case, U.S. v. Wurie, con­cerned a 2007 ar­rest of a sus­pec­ted drug deal­er in Bo­ston who, upon ar­rest, had his flip phone seized and his call his­tory promptly searched by au­thor­it­ies.

What We're Following See More »
IRANIANS CAME WITHIN 1,000 METERS
U.S. Navy Vessel Fired Flare at Iranian Boat on Monday
1 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer fired a warning flare toward an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel coming near it in the Persian Gulf. The incident happened Monday as the vessel closed to within 1,000 meters of the USS Mahan, "despite the destroyer trying to turn away from it." After attempting to contact the Iranian vessel and sounding its whistle, it deployed the flare. After that, the ship had had enough and turned away.

Source:
ON SANCTUARY CITIES
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
28 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

MAY BRING CONSERVATIVES ON BOARD, BUT WHAT ABOUT MODERATES?
House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

AT LEAST 30 TO BE ASSESSED
Trump to Order Review of National Monuments
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.

Source:
EMERGING BUDGET FRAMEWORK?
Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login