SCOTUS to Police: No Phone Searches Without a Warrant

Cell phones cannot be searched without a warrant.
Image: Shutterstock

This week was a big win for privacy advocates: on Wednesday, June 25, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant in order to legally search a person’s cell phone after arrest, barring unusual circumstances.

Arguments in favor of searches without a warrant claimed that searches of digital devices for information were comparable to searches police officers often conduct for contraband after making an arrest. That argument was resoundingly flattened by the SCOTUS’ decision.

“That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts in the decision. “Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together. Modern cell phones, as a category implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse.”

Roberts also argued that searches of a cell phone were more a violation of privacy than a search of the home, which is typically considered one of the most sacred places for privacy:

“A cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form – unless the phone is.”

Roberts also noted that though we now have the technology available to carry such private information around in our pocket, that does not make it “any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought,” bringing to light once more the fact that technological advancements no longer fit within the established legal framework—therefore making it difficult for law enforcement officers to come to a consensus on what is acceptable when making arrests.