A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Riley v. California, examined two lower court decisions from separate cases, leading to a landmark decision regarding digital privacy.
In one case, a man was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after a routine traffic stop – the result of expired registration tags. The lower Riley v. California case states that the defendant-appellant’s car was impounded after it was discovered that his license had been suspended. A search of the impounded car then turned up two concealed and loaded handguns. Having found a cell phone in his possession upon arrest, officers then began to search Riley’s phone for contacts, pictures, videos and other media that may have associated Riley with the “Bloods” street gang. Ultimately, data contained on Riley’s phone led to his conviction on three counts – firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder – all of which were aggravated because of Riley’s connection to street gang activity. Appeals of Riley’s conviction in California proved unsuccessful.
In the second case, a man was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison after police arrested him for a suspected drug sale. In Wurie v. United States, the defendant-appellant’s phone was seized after his arrest, and searched after numerous calls were received from a contact listed as “my house”. Police offers were able to track down Wurie’s address from the phone, and executed a warrant to search the premises. The search turned up crack cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a firearm and ammunition. Wurie was then convicted on three counts: distributing crack cocaine, possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Wurie successfully appealed his conviction on the grounds that his cell phone had been improperly searched. The United States appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In both Riley and Wurie, the defendant-appellants were stopped by police for lesser crimes, and convicted on serious charges, which the police would not have been able to prove but for their unwarranted search of data contained on cell phones. In delivering the Court’s opinion on the matter, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the common question in these cases was, “whether the police may, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.”
As the world becomes increasingly dependent on digital information, and in light of issues such as “the right to be forgotten,” digital searches and data privacy are grey areas attracting greater attention and begging for legal clarity. For cell phone searches, the U.S. Supreme Court points out that such a search must be “reasonable,” and that reasonability can be easily defined as a search with a warrant. The two cases that comprise the Riley v. California decision enquire about the reasonability of warrantless searches after a lawful arrest. In these cases, though there is no issue with removing a cell phone from the possession of a lawfully arrested individual, the Court points out that data contained on a cell phone cannot pose a danger to anyone. Therefore, without a warrant, the reasonability of searching said data is questionable.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court notes that, while an item such as a purse or wallet may be reasonably searched without a warrant at the time of arrest, a cell phone cannot be included in the same category of personal possessions. The amount of data included on a cell phone may well be equivalent in physical form to years worth of mail, albums full of pictures, dozens of books and home movies, and many other such cumbersome items. Without a cell phone, such a volume of possessions could not be carried around day-to-day, and would unquestionably require a warrant before a search would be authorized.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the private nature of the data contained on cell phones requires the same level of protection granted for most other personal possessions. In another win for data privacy, the Court stated that searches of digital information were invalid without a warrant.
Devin Millbower
Brophy Solicitors
In one case, a man was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after a routine traffic stop – the result of expired registration tags. The lower Riley v. California case states that the defendant-appellant’s car was impounded after it was discovered that his license had been suspended. A search of the impounded car then turned up two concealed and loaded handguns. Having found a cell phone in his possession upon arrest, officers then began to search Riley’s phone for contacts, pictures, videos and other media that may have associated Riley with the “Bloods” street gang. Ultimately, data contained on Riley’s phone led to his conviction on three counts – firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder – all of which were aggravated because of Riley’s connection to street gang activity. Appeals of Riley’s conviction in California proved unsuccessful.
In the second case, a man was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison after police arrested him for a suspected drug sale. In Wurie v. United States, the defendant-appellant’s phone was seized after his arrest, and searched after numerous calls were received from a contact listed as “my house”. Police offers were able to track down Wurie’s address from the phone, and executed a warrant to search the premises. The search turned up crack cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a firearm and ammunition. Wurie was then convicted on three counts: distributing crack cocaine, possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Wurie successfully appealed his conviction on the grounds that his cell phone had been improperly searched. The United States appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In both Riley and Wurie, the defendant-appellants were stopped by police for lesser crimes, and convicted on serious charges, which the police would not have been able to prove but for their unwarranted search of data contained on cell phones. In delivering the Court’s opinion on the matter, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the common question in these cases was, “whether the police may, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.”
As the world becomes increasingly dependent on digital information, and in light of issues such as “the right to be forgotten,” digital searches and data privacy are grey areas attracting greater attention and begging for legal clarity. For cell phone searches, the U.S. Supreme Court points out that such a search must be “reasonable,” and that reasonability can be easily defined as a search with a warrant. The two cases that comprise the Riley v. California decision enquire about the reasonability of warrantless searches after a lawful arrest. In these cases, though there is no issue with removing a cell phone from the possession of a lawfully arrested individual, the Court points out that data contained on a cell phone cannot pose a danger to anyone. Therefore, without a warrant, the reasonability of searching said data is questionable.
Further, the U.S. Supreme Court notes that, while an item such as a purse or wallet may be reasonably searched without a warrant at the time of arrest, a cell phone cannot be included in the same category of personal possessions. The amount of data included on a cell phone may well be equivalent in physical form to years worth of mail, albums full of pictures, dozens of books and home movies, and many other such cumbersome items. Without a cell phone, such a volume of possessions could not be carried around day-to-day, and would unquestionably require a warrant before a search would be authorized.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the private nature of the data contained on cell phones requires the same level of protection granted for most other personal possessions. In another win for data privacy, the Court stated that searches of digital information were invalid without a warrant.
Devin Millbower
Brophy Solicitors
No comments:
Post a Comment