Docket 13-132
Riley v. Cal. United States
DecidedJun 25, 2014
9-0unanimous decision
Source: CourtListener.
Police generally need a warrant to search the digital contents of a cell phone taken during an arrest
What it does
The ruling holds that police must generally get a warrant before searching data on a cell phone seized from someone they arrest, even though officers may still search a person's physical belongings without a warrant under the existing search-incident-to-arrest rule. It rejects extending that older rule, built for physical objects like wallets or cigarette packs, to the vast amount of personal digital information modern phones contain.
Who benefits
People who are arrested and carry smartphones or other cell phones containing personal data such as photos, messages, browsing history, and location records.
Who is affected
Police departments and prosecutors, who must now obtain a warrant (or rely on a specific emergency exception) before examining phone data taken during an arrest, rather than searching it automatically.
Practical impact
Police officers must now obtain a warrant before examining the contents of a cell phone taken from someone under arrest, unless a specific emergency such as an imminent bomb threat or search for an abducted child justifies an immediate search. Departments can still physically secure and inspect a phone's exterior for safety threats, and may take steps like removing the battery or using a signal-blocking bag to prevent remote wiping or encryption while they seek a warrant.
Majority reasoning
The Court reasoned that the search-incident-to-arrest exception has always rested on two concerns from Chimel v. California: protecting officer safety and preventing destruction of evidence. Neither concern applies with much force to digital data, because data itself cannot be used as a weapon, and once police have secured the phone, the arrestee cannot delete anything from it. The majority found proposed solutions to remote-wiping and encryption, such as turning off the phone or using a radio-blocking bag, sufficient to address those narrow risks, and noted that a true emergency can still be handled through the existing exigent-circumstances exception. On the privacy side, the Court explained that phones hold immense amounts of sensitive and wide-ranging personal information, far beyond what an arrestee could ever carry in physical form, and treating a phone search as equivalent to searching a wallet or cigarette pack is like comparing a horseback ride to a flight to the moon. It rejected the government's proposed fallback rules, including importing the vehicle-search standard from Arizona v. Gant, allowing searches limited to certain phone areas, or allowing automatic call-log searches, because each would give officers too much practical discretion. The majority concluded that obtaining a warrant is the proper answer, noting technology has also made warrants faster to get in many places.
Constitutional question
Does the Fourth Amendment allow police to search the digital contents of a cell phone without a warrant simply because the phone was found on a person they lawfully arrested?
Precedent changed
The Court declined to extend United States v. Robinson's categorical rule allowing warrantless searches of items on an arrestee's person to digital data on cell phones, distinguishing it without formally overruling it.