Victory for Cell Phone Privacy

For the first time since 9/11, cell phone privacy advocates claimed a major victory in phone surveillance. In a landslide ruling, Supreme Court justices voted nine-to-nothing that police will be required to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone from now on. The ruling stated that “technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant.” Chief Justice John Roberts admitted that this ruling will make it harder for police to stop crime in advance, but decided that’s no reason to give cops a shortcut. There’s a major difference between a cell phone and other general items that may be found on someone’s person. Cell phones hold a host of personal information that could prompt police to draw unfair conclusions. For instance, suspects in Massachusetts and California were convicted separately after officials read their text messages and contacts and linked them to gang and drug activities.
Two cases were highlighted during the Supreme Court case. The first involved the arrest of a college student named David Riley of San Diego. Riley was pulled over for expired tags in 2009 when police found loaded weapons hidden in the hood of his car. It wasn’t until the cops looked into his cell phone that they became persuaded of Riley’s connection to organized criminal activity and sentenced him to 15-years in state prison.

Another similar case in 2007 was called into question because authorities used the contents of Brima Wurie’s cell phone to identify his home address. Wurie was initially arrested for selling two packets of crack cocaine, but police found more drugs and weapons in his home. Wurie is serving a 22-year sentence in federal prison. Police failed to get a search warrant for the cell phone in both cases.

This ruling does not apply to the NSA’s data collection, but could set a strong precedent moving forward.