TribLIVE

| USWorld

 
Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Supreme Court: Police may not search smartphones without warrant

Getty Images
Kirsten Luna from Holland, Mich., uses her smartphone outside the U.S. Supreme Court after a major ruling on cell phone privacy by the court June 25, 2014 in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court issued a ruling requiring law enforcement officials to have a search warrant to search the cellphones of suspects they arrest.

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

From Staff and Wire Reports
Wednesday, June 25, 2014, 11:39 a.m.
 

Police across the country must get a search warrant if they want to view the data inside cellphones seized from people they arrest, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a decision hailed by many as a strong defense of digital-age privacy.

“Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life.”

The message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cellphone's contents following an arrest is simple, Roberts said: “Get a warrant.”

The chief justice acknowledged that barring searches would affect law enforcement but said: “Privacy comes at a cost.”

The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

But the defendants in these cases — backed by civil libertarians and news media groups — argued that cellphones, especially smartphones, are increasingly powerful computers that can store troves of sensitive personal information.

“By recognizing that the digital revolution has transformed our expectations of privacy, today's decision is itself revolutionary and will help to protect the privacy rights of all Americans,” said American Civil Liberties Union legal director Steven Shapiro.

University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris called the ruling “a big one,” in part because the court doesn't always understand technology and its consequences.

“Here, there's a very strong sense that not only do the justices understand what cellphones and smartphones are, they have them. You really get a sense they know how deep and wide the information stored in a cell phone is,” he said.

“It's the equivalent of a personal diary in very great detail with pictures to illustrate it. ... The court was right to put this protection on it.”

Though police in Pennsylvania are required to obtain a search warrant or consent to search a cellphone, the ruling “reaffirms” Pennsylvanians' Fourth Amendment rights, said Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney Blaine Jones.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires investigators to convince a judge they have probable cause to obtain a search warrant.

“The Supreme Court's ruling basically upheld what's been done in Pennsylvania. This bolstering of rights, however, is so important because it's the opposite of what I've seen taking place throughout the years,” Jones said.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that he would prefer elected lawmakers, not judges, to decide matters of privacy protection in the 21st Century. Elected officials “are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future,” Alito said.

Trib Total Media staff writer Adam Brandolph contributed to this report.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.

 

 


Show commenting policy

Most-Read Nation

  1. 2 women advance to final phase of Army Ranger training
  2. Obama to mandate steeper emissions cuts from power plants
  3. 4 dead, 65 sickened in Bronx by Legionella
  4. Marines finally ready to roll out controversial fighter jet
  5. Food industry players fighting proposed dietary guidelines drop millions on lobbyists
  6. State Department accuses top Clinton aide of violations
  7. ‘Fast, Furious’ pistol was sold to gunman in foiled Texas terrorist attack
  8. Construction of giant bridges sparks curiosity, high demand for public tours
  9. Pressure mounts for Biden to join 2016 White House race
  10. Midwest farmers pessimistic of fall harvest amid damaging, long-term rain
  11. Congress embraces highway bill