The U.S. Supreme court decided the question whether law enforcement officers can search a cell phones without a warrant after an arrest, as they can with address books and wallets? I wrote an article about this case and here is a brief synopsis of the facts of the case.
On January 21, 2014, The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Navarette v. California to decide the following issue: “Does the Fourth Amendment (right against unreasonable search and seizure), require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunk or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?”
This California case involved a Mendocino County 911 dispatcher in August 2008 who received a call from another county dispatcher reporting that a silver Ford truck had run another car off the road. The car occupants had anonymously reported that the truck ran them off the road. A police officer saw the truck, pulled it over, searched it, and found four large bags of marijuana and arrested Jose and Lorenzo Navarette for marijuana transportation, possession, and sale.
The Navarettes filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana, arguing that the anonymous tip was not sufficient to justify the stop because the officer did not independently corroborated the alleged illegal activity (reckless driving). The magistrate denied the motion, and on the appeal, the California Court of Appeal held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an anonymous tip must be corroborated in order to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In a landmark decision issued on June 25, 2014, a unanimous court clarified long-standing questions about constitutional protections in the computer age. This decision potentially shifted the debate over cyber-rights in the modern society.
Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that except in extraordinary circumstances such as child abduction or a ticking time bomb, the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizures required police officers to get a warrant prior to examining a cell phone after an arrest. The normally restrained Justice Roberts broadened the idea of privacy in that he states the difference between a wallet and a cell phone is as great as that between “a ride on a horseback” and “a flight to the moon.”
The mini-computers we carry in our pockets can collect in one place “the sum of an individual’s private life,” Roberts wrote, and now clearly we have a greater expectation of privacy. The fact that new technology makes private life portable makes it no “less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” By invoking the vision of the founders of the country clearly shows the Justices embraced the strong vision of digital privacy.
As we all know and more of our personal and private lives become “portable,” the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment protections will continue to be potent tools against intrusion remains. The lower courts are now considering whether data collection by the National Security agency violates privacy protections. While this case addresses only Fourth Amendment which applies to government searches, this ruling sets the tone for coming legal battles over commercial and workplace privacy issues.
Any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 310-601-7144 or email me at [email protected].