The Supreme Court Is About to Decide the Future of Cell-Phone Privacy

Two cases before the Court on Tuesday will revisit Fourth Amendment principles that protect Americans from unreasonable searches during an arrest.

A woman gives a phone calle with a brighty colored smartphone in Bordeaux on May 3, 2013 .
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
April 28, 2014, 8:09 a.m.

Do po­lice have the right to hunt through your iPhone’s treas­ure trove of text mes­sages, pho­tos, and call his­tory dur­ing an ar­rest?

The Su­preme Court will at­tempt to an­swer that ques­tion Tues­day as it hears two re­lated cases that con­sider the pri­vacy pro­tec­tions of per­son­al data in cell phones.

At is­sue in both cases is wheth­er — and to what ex­tent — law-en­force­ment of­fi­cials have the right to war­rant­lessly search phones dur­ing or shortly after an ar­rest. Po­ten­tially far-reach­ing de­cisions are ex­pec­ted in June.

State pro­sec­utors and the Justice De­part­ment say po­lice need to be able to search cell phones and, by ex­ten­sion, oth­er per­son­al elec­tron­ic devices to ob­tain ne­ces­sary evid­ence and catch bad guys. But pri­vacy ad­voc­ates con­tend that the vast amount of data that phones can now hold con­sti­tute an X-ray win­dow in­to a per­son’s private life. They warn that earli­er rul­ings grant­ing search au­thor­ity to po­lice nev­er in­ten­ded for so much sens­it­ive in­form­a­tion to be sub­ject to a war­rant­less search.

“Al­low­ing po­lice of­ficers to search a per­son’s cell phone without a war­rant fol­low­ing an ar­rest would be a sub­stan­tial in­fringe­ment on pri­vacy, is un­ne­ces­sary, and un­reas­on­able un­der the Fourth Amend­ment,” the Elec­tron­ic Pri­vacy In­form­a­tion Cen­ter wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief. “There is no need to al­low war­rant­less searches when cur­rently avail­able tech­niques al­low law en­force­ment to se­cure the cell-phone data pending a ju­di­cial de­term­in­a­tion of prob­able cause.”

The Fourth Amend­ment pro­tects Amer­ic­ans from un­reas­on­able searches, a prin­ciple that of­ten also ex­tends to items con­sidered per­son­al prop­erty. But dec­ades-old court rul­ings have gran­ted po­lice the nar­row au­thor­ity to search a sus­pect and the area with­in his reach “from in­cid­ent to ar­rest.”

That stand­ard, however, was made long be­fore cell phones ex­is­ted and was largely in­ten­ded to pre­vent a sus­pect from des­troy­ing evid­ence or grabbing a nearby weapon. But the near-ubi­quity of cell phones — and the grow­ing amount of per­son­al in­form­a­tion that can be stored on them — has now promp­ted con­sid­er­a­tion by the Su­preme Court.

In Ri­ley v. Cali­for­nia, the Court will weigh 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. A com­prom­ising photo dis­covered on the phone showed the man pos­ing with a gang mem­ber and a car sus­pec­ted in a drive-by shoot­ing. The photo was later used in court as evid­ence in a tri­al that res­ul­ted in a 15-year pris­on sen­tence.

Cali­for­nia claims that au­thor­it­ies ac­ted prop­erly and that pre­vi­ous court de­cisions have con­sist­ently up­held the right to search per­son­al items a sus­pect is car­ry­ing at the time of ar­rest.

“Cali­for­nia re­cog­nizes the re­mark­able ad­vances that have been, and con­tin­ue to be, made in com­mu­nic­a­tions, stor­age, and net­work­ing tech­no­logy,” the state’s brief reads. “The facts of this case, however, provide no basis for de­par­ture from long-stand­ing Fourth Amend­ment stand­ards.”

The second case be­fore the Court, U.S. v. Wurie, con­cerns a 2007 ar­rest of an al­leged drug deal­er in Bo­ston who, upon ar­rest, had his flip phone seized and his call his­tory promptly searched by au­thor­it­ies. The search of call logs led po­lice to a res­id­ence — lis­ted in the phone as “my house,” though dif­fer­ent than the ad­dress the sus­pect provided — where they found (this time, with a war­rant in hand) fire­arms and crack co­caine.

The Justice De­part­ment, in its Wurie brief, opened the door to a nu­anced rul­ing that wouldn’t be an all-or-noth­ing pro­pos­i­tion. But it sug­ges­ted that cell phones must be in­cluded in any for­mula.

“Even if it were ap­pro­pri­ate to cre­ate item-by-item ex­cep­tions to of­ficers’ au­thor­ity to search an ar­restee, no sound jus­ti­fic­a­tion ex­ists to ex­clude cell phones from the gen­er­al rule,” So­li­cit­or Gen­er­al Don­ald Ver­rilli will ar­gue Tues­day. “In today’s world, cell phones are par­tic­u­larly likely to con­tain evid­ence of un­law­ful activ­ity and to help law-en­force­ment of­ficers identi­fy sus­pects they have ap­pre­hen­ded.”

Ex­actly how the Court could nar­rowly tail­or its de­cision is un­clear, al­though the fact that one case deals with an an­ti­quated flip phone and the oth­er with a smart­phone could of­fer some guid­ance. But it also un­der­scores how the tech­no­lo­gic­al cap­ab­il­it­ies of phones evolve rap­idly and there­fore prove dif­fi­cult to de­vel­op con­crete stand­ards.

Tues­day’s cases have drawn wide in­terest for the po­ten­tially far-reach­ing rami­fic­a­tions the Court’s opin­ions could have on every Amer­ic­an’s rights to di­git­al pri­vacy. Four­teen news or­gan­iz­a­tions filed a brief ar­guing that phone pri­vacy is cru­cial to a free press and must be pro­tec­ted. On Monday, one of them, The New York Times, strongly urged the Su­preme Court to not upend long-stand­ing Fourth Amend­ment prin­ciples to ac­com­mod­ate the chal­lenges that law en­force­ment claims phones present.

“Mo­bile phones aren’t weapons and pose no phys­ic­al threat, and any evid­ence on the phone can be pre­served by us­ing spe­cial devices to pre­vent re­mote de­le­tion of the data,” the pa­per’s ed­it­or­i­al board wrote Monday. “Per­mit­ting po­lice of­ficers to search a mo­bile phone, or any di­git­al stor­age device, es­sen­tially gives them ac­cess to someone’s en­tire life; al­low­ing them to do so without a war­rant renders the Fourth Amend­ment’s guar­an­tee against un­reas­on­able searches and seizures mean­ing­less.”

Wash­ing­ton has been gripped in a rolling de­bate over how much of Amer­ic­ans’ per­son­al di­git­al com­mu­nic­a­tions should be off-lim­its to gov­ern­ment since former con­tract­or Ed­ward Snowden leaked de­tails about the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s bulk col­lec­tion of phone metadata last June.

While the is­sues be­fore the Court have noth­ing to do with NSA sur­veil­lance, civil-liber­ties and pri­vacy ad­voc­ates see the cases as yet an­oth­er bat­tle­front in an on­go­ing war over how much data au­thor­it­ies and cor­por­a­tions should be al­lowed to gath­er, store, and ana­lyze. The Court’s rul­ings could por­tend how it leans in any num­ber of fu­ture cases deal­ing with di­git­al pri­vacy.

What We're Following See More »
Republican Polling Shows Close Race
Roundup: National Polling Remains Inconsistent
4 hours ago

The national polls, once again, tell very different stories: Clinton leads by just one point in the IBD, Rasmussen, and LA Times tracking polls, while she shows a commanding 12 point lead in the ABC news poll and a smaller but sizable five point lead in the CNN poll. The Republican Remington Research Group released a slew of polls showing Trump up in Ohio, Nevada, and North Carolina, a tie in Florida, and Clinton leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. However, an independent Siena poll shows Clinton up 7 in North Carolina, while a Monmouth poll shows Trump up one in Arizona

Colin Powell to Vote for Clinton
7 hours ago
Cook Report: Dems to Pick up 5-7 Seats, Retake Senate
9 hours ago

Since the release of the Access Hollywood tape, on which Donald Trump boasted of sexually assaulting women, "Senate Republicans have seen their fortunes dip, particularly in states like Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada and Pennsylvania," where Hillary Clinton now leads. Jennifer Duffy writes that she now expects Democrats to gain five to seven seats—enough to regain control of the chamber.

"Of the Senate seats in the Toss Up column, Trump only leads in Indiana and Missouri where both Republicans are running a few points behind him. ... History shows that races in the Toss Up column never split down the middle; one party tends to win the lion’s share of them."

Tying Republicans to Trump Now an Actionable Offense
11 hours ago

"Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump. Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans―Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother―contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee. Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation."

Former Congressman Schock Fined $10,000
11 hours ago

Former Illinois GOP Congressman Aaron Schock "recently agreed to pay a $10,000 fine for making an excessive solicitation for a super PAC that was active in his home state of Illinois four years ago." Schock resigned from Congress after a story about his Downton Abbey-themed congressional office raised questions about how he was using taxpayer dollars.


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.