Try the new, improved Hartford Courant digital edition today
CT Now

No warrant, no search of your cellphone

Forty years ago, when the Supreme Court expanded the right of police to search people they took into custody as well as the possessions they were carrying, the smartphone was the stuff of science fiction. But now that phones contain vast amounts of personal information, the court should rule that cellphone searches require a warrant.

Last week, the justices agreed to review two lower court decisions that came to different conclusions about the privacy of cellphone data. In a California case, a state court upheld the conviction of David Leon Riley, who was initially pulled over because his car had expired tags. After police found guns in the car, they arrested Riley and searched through what one detective called "lots of stuff" on his Samsung smartphone, including a photo showing Riley and another man posing near a car that had been involved in a shooting.

In the other case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that police may not conduct warrantless searches of data on cellphones seized from people who have been arrested. The case involved Brima Wurie, whose comparatively primitive flip phone displayed calls from a number identified as "my house." When police went to the address associated with that number, they found a mailbox labeled with Wurie's name. After obtaining a warrant, police searched the house and found crack cocaine, marijuana, cash and a firearm.

Police long have been allowed to conduct warrantless searches of people they arrest because of the possibility that a suspect might have a concealed weapon or try to destroy evidence. But in 1973, the Supreme Court unjustifiably held that such searches were legal even when there was no probability that weapons or evidence would be found. The invasion of privacy permitted by that ruling multiplies exponentially when the object searched is a smartphone.

Ideally the court would endorse the 1st Circuit's holding that warrantless searches of cellphones are always unconstitutional. But the court also could draw a distinction between the search of Wurie's phone, on which the call register was easily accessed, and the more intrusive search of Riley's smartphone.

When the framers of the Constitution wrote of the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches," they couldn't have foreseen that "papers and effects" would be housed in a palm-sized device. But the court should rule that the principle of privacy is the same.

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • Did Scalia stereotype Ginsburg by calling her 'Goldberg'?

    Did Scalia stereotype Ginsburg by calling her 'Goldberg'?

    David Savage, this newspaper’s Supreme Court reporter, has written a delightful account of the odd-couple friendship of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  • A sign of discrimination in Arizona town

    A sign of discrimination in Arizona town

    A sign posted on or near a public highway is an expression of speech, but it also can pose safety and aesthetic problems. A community should be free to regulate the distraction and clutter created by public signage so long as it doesn't pick and choose on the basis of the signs' content.

  • Profligacy at the state's Judicial Council?

    Profligacy at the state's Judicial Council?

    While California's economy was only beginning to recover from deep recession, the Administrative Office of the Courts was maintaining a fleet of 66 vehicles. Were they needed? Who knows. An audit released last week found no documented justification.

  • Ignorance of the law isn't an acceptable defense, even for police

    It's already too easy for police to stop motorists they consider suspicious using the pretext of a minor violation of traffic laws. Law enforcement will enjoy even more leeway under Monday's misguided Supreme Court decision upholding the legality of stops based on an officer's misunderstanding...

  • In lethal injection case, high court has a chance to take a bold step

    In lethal injection case, high court has a chance to take a bold step

    In the effort to find less gruesome ways to execute condemned prisoners, more than two dozen states — including California — adopted a lethal injection protocol developed by Oklahoma in the late 1970s in which the prisoner is rendered insensate with one injection, then given a paralytic to halt...

  • Another thing the Supreme Court can't agree on

    Another thing the Supreme Court can't agree on

    Maybe you were in a cave and missed the news: The Supreme Court came back from summer recess  Oct. 5 and surprised a lot of folks by denying five petitions for writs of certiorari related to same-sex marriage.  The court's "no" amounted to a "yes" – by denying the petitions, it spread legal gay...