Cellphone searches unnerve liberal justices
WASHINGTON — Warrantless smartphone searches worried Supreme Court justices on Tuesday, with several challenging law enforcement intrusions on privacy.
In a high-tech case that goes well beyond its San Diego origins, liberal justices in particular seemed poised to limit what police may do with smartphones taken during arrests.
“Most people now do carry their lives on cellphones, and that will only grow every single year as, you know, young people take over the world,” Justice Elena Kagan said.
At the same time, pointed questions from conservative justices and persistent probings by Justice Anthony Kennedy, frequently a swing vote, hinted at a difficult split decision ahead.
“Smartphones do present difficult problems,” said Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative who often sides with law enforcement.
The California smartphone case heard on Tuesday, along with a case involving a Massachusetts cellphone, brought justices grappling with devices that are banned from the courtroom.
An estimated 91 percent of adults own cellphones, and 56 percent of adults were using smartphones last year, according to surveys.
“With digital cameras, people take endless photos, and it spans their entire life,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted. “A GPS can follow people in a way that prior following by police officers in cars didn't permit.”
The California smartphone case started when a San Diego police officer pulled over David Leon Riley on Aug. 22, 2009. Police impounded Riley's Lexus because he had been driving with a suspended license, and in a subsequent search, they found two guns.
A police officer checked Riley's unlocked Samsung Instinct phone and found video clips of gang initiation fights, pictures of gang signs and clips of a red Oldsmobile allegedly used in a gang shooting.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.