Tuesday, September 23rd20.0°C
23284

Supreme Court tells police to 'get a warrant' before searching arrestees' cellphones

WASHINGTON - In a strong defence of digital age privacy, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants.

Cellphones are powerful devices unlike anything else police may find on someone they arrest, Chief Justice John Roberts said for the court. Because the phones contain so much information, police must get a warrant before looking through them, Roberts said.

"Modern cellphones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life," Roberts said.

The message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cellphone's contents following an arrest is simple. "Get a warrant," Roberts said.

The court chose not to extend earlier rulings that allow police to empty a suspect's pockets and examine whatever they find to ensure officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.

The Obama administration and the state of California, defending the cellphone searches, said cellphones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

But the defendants in these cases, backed by civil libertarians, librarians and news media groups, argued that cellphones, especially smartphones, are increasingly powerful computers that can store troves of sensitive personal information.

In the cases decided Wednesday, one defendant carried a smartphone, while the other carried an older flip phone.

Roberts said the comparison to packages of cigarettes and other items that were at issue in the earlier cases is not apt.

A ride on horseback and a flight to the moon both "are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together," he said.

Authorities concerned about the destruction of evidence can take steps to prevent the remote erasure of a phone's contents or the activation of encryption, Roberts said.

One exception to the warrant requirement left open by the decision is a case in which officers reasonably fear for their safety or the lives of others.

Justice Samuel Alito joined in the judgment, but wrote separately to say he would prefer elected lawmakers, not judges, decide matters of privacy protection in the 21st century. Elected officials "are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future," Alito said.

The two cases arose after arrests in San Diego and Boston.

In San Diego, police found indications of gang membership when they looked through defendant David Leon Riley's Samsung smartphone. Prosecutors used video and photographs found on the smartphone to persuade a jury to convict Riley of attempted murder and other charges. California courts rejected Riley's efforts to throw out the evidence and upheld the convictions.

The court ordered the California Supreme Court to take a new look at Riley's case.

In Boston, a federal appeals court ruled that police must have a warrant before searching arrestees' cellphones.

Police arrested Brima Wurie on suspicion of selling crack cocaine, checked the call log on his flip phone and used that information to determine where he lived. When they searched Wurie's home and had a warrant, they found crack, marijuana, a gun and ammunition. The evidence was enough to produce a conviction and a prison term of more than 20 years.

The appeals court ruled for Wurie, but left in place a drug conviction for selling cocaine near a school that did not depend on the tainted evidence. That conviction also carried a 20-year sentence. The administration appealed the court ruling because it wants to preserve the warrantless searches following arrest.

The justices upheld that ruling.

The cases are Riley v. California, 13-132, and U.S. v. Wurie, 13-212.

The Canadian Press


Read more Business News




Recent Trending




Today's Market
S&P TSX15125.67-3.33
S&P CDNX925.18-2.91
DJIA17055.87-116.81
Nasdaq4508.688-19.001
S&P 5001982.77-11.52
CDN Dollar0.9028-0.0003
Gold1223.60+1.60
Oil91.50-0.91
Lumber332.00+5.40
Natural Gas3.882-0.026

 
Okanagan Companies
Pacific Safety0.135-0.035
Knighthawk0.01-0.005
QHR Technologies Inc1.26-0.01
Cantex0.05+0.01
Anavex Life Sciences0.20-0.0195
Metalex Ventures0.06+0.01
Russel Metals34.95-0.42
Copper Mountain Mining2.42+0.02
Colorado Resources0.165+0.005
ReliaBrand Inc0.0157-0.0049
Sunrise Resources Ltd0.02-0.005
Mission Ready Services0.265-0.005

 



23475

FEATURED Property
20169074458A Lakeland Road
3 bedrooms 4 baths
$5,250,000
more details
image2image2image2
Click here to feature your property
Please wait... loading


Is this a fair offer from ICBC?

“Is this a fair offer from ICBC?”…. “How much should I settle for?”… “What is my claim worth?” These are just some of the questions I regularly get as...


Disruptive innovation

Last night I was privileged to be able to speak at the Greater Westside Board of Trade business awards dinner. Photo: ContributedI talked about Innovation and Collaboration which are two very interes...


Executors and their duties

There will be a time when you will need to decide who you should appoint as executor of your Will. As well, there may be a time when you will be asked by someone to act as the executor of his or her W...

_





23499


Member of BC Press Council


22771