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
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 »
WHITE HOUSE URGING QUICK SENATE ACTION
John King Gets Nod for Education Secretary
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

President Obama has said he’ll nominate John King to fill out the last few months of Obama’s presidency as Secretary of Education. King has been in an acting secretary role since Arne Duncan stepped down in December. The White House is pressuring the Senate to act quickly on the nomination.

Source:
162,000 SIGNATURES SO FAR
Sanders Supporters Begin to Petition Superdelegates
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Bernie Sanders supporters aren’t taking this whole superdelegate thing lying down. Despite a tie a blowout win against Hillary Clinton, Sanders trails her by some 350 delegates in the overall count, thanks mostly to superdelegates pledging to support her. His backers have taken to creating a MoveOn.org petition to pressure the superdelegates to be flexible. It reads: “Commit to honoring the voters—let everyone know that you won’t allow your vote to defeat our votes. Announce that in the event of a close race, you’ll align yourself with regular voters—not party elites.” So far it’s attracted 162,000 signatures. Related: At FiveThirtyEight, Nate Silver notes that in 2008, Clinton had a 154-50 superdelegate advantage over President Obama when New Hampshire voted. But “by the time Clinton ended her campaign on June 7, 2008, Obama had nearly a 2-to-1 superdelegate advantage over her,” owing in part to many pledged delegates who switched their support to Obama.

Source:
REGULAR ORDER
Ryan Pitching the Importance of Passing a Budget Today
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

House Speaker Paul Ryan today is trying to convince his large but divided conference that they need to pass a budget under regular order. “Conservatives are revolting against higher top-line spending levels negotiated last fall by President Obama and Ryan’s predecessor, then-Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). GOP centrists are digging in on the other side, pledging to kill any budget that deviates from the two-year, bipartisan budget deal.” Ryan’s three options are to lower the budget numbers to appease the Freedom Caucus, “deem” a budget and move on to the appropriations process, or “preserve Obama-Boehner levels, but seek savings elsewhere.”

Source:
HEADED TO PRESIDENT’S DESK
Trade Bill Would Ban Imports Made with Slave Labor
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

“A bill headed for President Barack Obama this week includes a provision that would ban U.S. imports of fish caught by slaves in Southeast Asia, gold mined by children in Africa and garments sewn by abused women in Bangladesh, closing a loophole in an 85-year-old tariff law.” The Senate approved the bill, which would also ban Internet taxes and overhaul trade laws, by a vote of 75-20. It now goes to President Obama.

Source:
TRUMP UP TO 44%
Sanders Closes to Within Seven Nationally in New Poll
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

Bernie Sanders has closed to within seven points of Hillary Clinton in a new Morning Consult survey. Clinton leads 46%-39%. Consistent with the New Hampshire voting results, Clinton does best with retirees, while Sanders leads by 20 percentage points among those under 30. On the Republican side, Donald Trump is far ahead with 44% support. Trailing by a huge margin are Ted Cruz (17%), Ben Carson (10%) and Marco Rubio (10%).

Source:
×