Supreme Court takes on privacy in digital age

Apr 27, 2014 by Mark Sherman
People walk on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Saturday April 26, 2014. Two Supreme Court cases about police searches of cellphones without warrants present vastly different views of the ubiquitous device. Is it a critical tool for a criminal or is it an American's virtual home? How the justices answer that question could determine the outcome of the cases being argued Tuesday, April 29, 2014. A drug dealer and a gang member want the court to rule that the searches of their cellphones after their arrest violated their right to privacy in the digital age. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases about police searches of mobile phones without warrants present vastly different views of the ubiquitous device.

Is it a critical tool for a criminal or is it an American's virtual home?

How the justices answer that question could determine the outcome of the cases being argued Tuesday. A drug dealer and a gang member want the court to rule that the searches of their cellphones after their arrest violated their right to privacy in the digital age.

The Obama administration and California, defending the searches, say cellphones are no different from anything else a person may be carrying when arrested. Police may search those items without a warrant under a line of high court cases reaching back 40 years.

What's more, said Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, "Cellphones are now critical tools in the commission of crimes."

The cases come to the Supreme Court amid separate legal challenges to the massive warrantless collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency and the government's use of technology to track Americans' movements.

Librarians, the news media, defense lawyers and civil liberties groups on the right and left are trying to convince the justices that they should take a broad view of the privacy issues raised when police have unimpeded access to increasingly powerful devices that may contain a wealth of personal data: emails and phone numbers, photographs, information about purchases and political affiliations, books and a gateway to even more material online.

"Cellphones and other portable electronic devices are, in effect, our new homes," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that urged the court to apply the same tough standards to cellphone searches that judges have historically applied to police intrusions into a home.

Under the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, police generally need a warrant before they can conduct a search. The warrant itself must be based on "probable cause," evidence that a crime has been committed.

But in the early 1970s, the Supreme Court carved out exceptions for officers dealing with people they have arrested. The court was trying to set clear rules that allowed police to look for concealed weapons and prevent the destruction of evidence. Briefcases, wallets, purses and crumpled cigarette packs all are fair game if they are being carried by a suspect or within the person's immediate control.

Car searches pose a somewhat different issue. In 2009, in the case of a suspect handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser, the court said police may search a car only if the arrestee "is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment" or if police believe the car contains evidence relevant to the crime for which the person had been arrested.

The Supreme Court is expected to resolve growing division in state and federal courts over whether cellphones deserve special protection.

More than 90 percent of Americans own at least one cellphone, the Pew Research Center says, and the majority of those are smartphones—essentially increasingly powerful computers that are also telephones.

In the two Supreme Court cases being argued Tuesday, one defendant carried a smartphone and the other an older and less advanced flip phone.

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.

Smartphones also have the ability to connect to the Internet, but the administration said in its brief that it is not arguing for the authority to conduct a warrantless Internet-based search using an arrestee's device.

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, armed with 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.

Explore further: High court could weigh in on cellphone searches

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

High court could weigh in on cellphone searches

Jan 16, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court decided 40 years ago that police do not need a search warrant to look through anything a person is carrying when arrested. But that was long before smartphones gave people the ability to take with them ...

US court weighs police use of cellphone tower data

Apr 25, 2014

A U.S. appeals court is wrestling with whether law enforcement has the authority to obtain and use records from cellphone towers, in a case that weighs the importance of people's right to privacy in the age of digital technology.

Recommended for you

UN moves to strengthen digital privacy (Update)

Nov 25, 2014

The United Nations on Tuesday adopted a resolution on protecting digital privacy that for the first time urged governments to offer redress to citizens targeted by mass surveillance.

Spotify turns up volume as losses fall

Nov 25, 2014

The world's biggest music streaming service, Spotify, announced Tuesday its revenue grew by 74 percent in 2013 while net losses shrank by one third, in a year of spectacular expansion.

Virtual money and user's identity

Nov 25, 2014

Bitcoin is the new money: minted and exchanged on the Internet. Faster and cheaper than a bank, the service is attracting attention from all over the world. But a big question remains: are the transactions ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

animah
not rated yet Apr 27, 2014
Computing power and web connectivity are squeezed into ever-tinier form factors. Your phone, smartwatch (pedometer?), fridge, car (GPS?) and a myriad other things will describe you in intimate detail.

Stored in online clouds, that data will create new, personally identifiable, real time remote sensing and tracking of people and groups.

This could have massive positive impact (e.g. allowing you to better manage your health, spending habits, safety etc) but the potential for abuse is breathtaking.

I think privacy vs. law and order in the internet of things is likely to become a significant social debate for our kids' generation.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.