Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Supreme Court may need to decide how private a cellphone is
First Published Aug 06 2013 08:48 am • Last Updated Aug 06 2013 08:48 am

Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t hesitate last fall when a questioner asked him about the biggest constitutional challenge the Supreme Court faced.

Roberts told the audience at Rice University in Houston that the court must identify "the fundamental principle underlying what constitutional protection is and apply it to new issues and new technology. I think that is going to be the real challenge for the next 50 years."

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The court has started the process, of course. In the recently completed term, a majority said technological advances in how quickly warrants may be obtained means that in most cases police officers must obtain one before forcing a suspected drunken driver to take a blood test.

And, over a sharply worded dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, the court went a long way toward endorsing DNA testing as the modern-day equivalent of fingerprinting. It approved of Maryland’s law that allows police to take DNA swabs at the time someone is arrested for — not convicted of — a major violent crime.

Now, amid a national debate over how much government should be able to find out about the private activities of its citizens in the name of combating terrorism, the next issue seems teed up for Supreme Court review:

More than 85 percent of Americans carry one and they provide authorities with more than just a vast record of a person’s travels and phone calls. Modern smartphones have a memory capacity equal to that of a typical home computer in 2004, capable of storing millions of pages of documents.

"That information is, by and large, of a highly personal nature: photographs, videos, written and audio messages (text, email and voicemail), contacts, calendar appointments, web search and browsing history, purchases and financial and medical records," Judge Norman Stahl of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit wrote recently. "It is the kind of information one would previously have stored in one’s home."

Stahl wrote for the majority in a 2 to 1 decision that applied the Fourth Amendment to the search of a cellphone found on a man arrested for selling drugs. The amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In most cases, a warrant is required. But the Supreme Court has said there are numerous exceptions to that general rule. In particular, in what courts refer to as "search incident to arrest," a warrantless search is justified when officers are protecting themselves by looking for weapons or securing evidence that might be destroyed.

And justices in the past have been lenient about allowing searches of items found on a person who has been legally arrested.


story continues below
story continues below

But Stahl and fellow Judge Kermit Lipez disagreed with the government’s contention that a cellphone is "indistinguishable from other kinds of personal possessions, like a cigarette package, wallet, pager or address book, that fall within the search incident to arrest exception" approved by the Supreme Court.

Stahl and Lipez endorsed a "bright-line" rule that warrantless cellphone data searches are "categorically unlawful" given the "government’s failure to demonstrate that they are ever necessary to promote officer safety or prevent the destruction of evidence."

Dissenting Judge Jeffrey Howard said his colleagues had no need to make such a broad ruling. "The constitutionality of a search cannot turn solely on whether the information is written in ink or displayed electronically," he wrote.

The decision creates a split among courts that have examined the issue. The Florida Supreme Court, for instance, has ruled that police generally may not search an arrestee’s cellphone data, and some states have taken action legislatively.

But more importantly for the Supreme Court, every other federal appeals court that has looked at the issue is at odds with the 1st Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Wurie.

When the government asked for an en banc, or full court, review of the panel’s ruling, 1st Circuit Chief Judge Sandra Lynch said there would not be much point in that.

"I think the preferable course is to speed this case to the Supreme Court," she wrote. Only the justices can settle the "confusing and often contradictory guidance to law enforcement" supplied by lower courts.

Once they’ve taken care of that, the justices might want to decide whether the government needs a warrant to obtain cellphone location data from telecommunications carriers. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that a warrant was unneeded.

That contrasts with a unanimous decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, based on the state constitution, that it is required. Other federal appeals courts are reviewing similar cases.

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.