On Wednesday the Supreme Court made an important ruling in the defense of digital privacy. In a unanimous decision the justices declared that police enforcement can not generally search a cell phone automatically following an arrest. A warrant, they ruled, must be obtained before the device can be searched.
This is a big win for anyone who approves of respecting personal privacy. Chief Justice John Roberts said, as reported by the Associated Press, that “Cellphones are powerful devices unlike anything else police may find on someone they arrest.” Some people pour their entire lives into their cellphones. It is unreasonable to suggest that it is just another piece of evidence.
The ruling comes after earlier rulings in lesser courts that allowed police to empty an arrestee’s pockets and search their contents to ensure the officers safety. The Obama administration has been a supporter of the practice that had many debating whether or not it violates the 4th amendment. The administration believes that cell phones should be considered fair game like anything else found at the time of arrest.
The Supreme Court’s decision affects two big cases that have attracted a lot of notoriety. The first took place in San Diego when David Leon Riley was arrested and then convicted on an attempted murder charge based off of evidence found on his cell phone. The justices have ordered the California Supreme Court to review his case again without the cell phone evidence.
The second happened in Boston when Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of selling crack. Police then used his cell phone to find out where he lived, where crack and marijuana were both found along with guns. Though a federal appeals court threw out that conviction, the Supreme Court ended up upholding that ruling.
The decision was made as an attempt to find a compromise between the different appeals courts. Because police specified their search to solely addresses and incoming calls the Supreme Court ruled that they were in their right to do so.
Still these will not be the last cases that are brought into public attention on the matter. The more technology progresses the greater the struggle it will be for the Supreme Court to decide what violates the 4th amendment. For those who believe that police should be able to violate personal privacy at will, remember that it is a slippery slope. Because if police are able to search without something keeping them accountable, what’s to stop that practice from being applied further?
Photo: Bigstock
