AAPL Stock: 110.38 ( + 0.8 )

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.

by MacNN Staff





  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

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Polk Hinge Wireless headphones

Polk, a company well-established in the audio market, recently released a new set of headphones aimed at the lifestyle market. The Hin ...

Blue Yeti Studio

Despite being very familiar with Blue Microphones' lower-end products -- we've long recommended the company's Snowball line of mics ...

ZTE Spro 2 Smart Projector

Home theaters are becoming more and more accessible these days, but maybe you've been a bit wary about buying a home projector. And h ...


Most Commented