Printed from

US Supreme Court hears arguments about warrantless cellphone searches

updated 01:18 pm EDT, Wed April 30, 2014

Is a warrantless cellphone search a Fourth Amendment violation?

This iteration of the US Supreme Court gathering has not only heard the Aereo case, but also a pair of cases discussing the requirements of police officers searching suspects' phones. Two cases heard before the court this week -- one involving a flip phone, the other a smartphone -- were heard back-to-back on Tuesday, with the need for a warrant to search a person's phone being the centerpiece of both hearings.

The hearing centered around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause. An example given by the court is a person detained for not wearing a seat belt. The question was asked if an officer has the right to rifle through the person not wearing the seat belt's cellphone to see if there is any incriminating evidence of any other illicit behavior on the device.

The Riley v. California case specifically asks if a police officer in the field is allowed to rummage through the digital contents of an arrested suspect in the field. Once again, the court was thrown into a morass of technical terms and service name-dropping, all to decide if California police had the right to search David Riley's phone, just because his cellphone had a picture of him standing next to a red Oldsmobile possibly involved in a drive-by shooting.

The Riley arrest started with a traffic stop, and subsequent detention from driving on a suspended license. A pair of warrantless searches of the cellphone ultimately led to ballistics tests on discovered weapons, which ultimately led to the individual's conviction for a drive-by shooting with no witnesses and little other evidence. An appeal failed, as California's state Supreme Court had already given its blessing to warrantless cellphone searches.

The rulings in the pair of cases is expected before the end of June. Precedent from the case rulings will form a de facto standard for the pastiche of federal and state rulings on the matter.

SCOTUS Warrantless cellphone search transcript

By Electronista Staff
Post tools:




  1. chrup

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: 09-15-09

    keep your phone locked - and I mean by a pass key, not by a fingerprint. You don't have to give anybody your passkey but you are required to unlock your phone with your fingerprint if there is a warrant for it. Giving out your passkey is protected by the fifth amendment where you don't have to give out information that can lead to self discrimination.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Seagate Wireless

It seems like no matter how much internal storage is included today's mobile devices, we, as users, will always find a way to fill the ...

Lenovo Yoga Tablet 2 (Android, 10.1-inch)

Lenovo is building a bigger name for itself year after year, including its devices expanding beyond desktop computers. The company's l ...

Brother HL-L8250CDN Color Laser Printer

When it comes to selecting a printer, the process is not exactly something most people put a lot of thought into. Printers are often t ...



Most Commented


Popular News