Opinion
Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion Editorial
Editorial

A smart, historic ruling on cellphone privacy

The ruling that police need a warrant to search cellphones is historic
U.S. Supreme Court rules that police need a search warrant for cellphones

In 2012, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told a university audience that the challenge for the Supreme Court for the next 50 years would be: "How do we adapt old, established rules to new technology?" On Wednesday, the court proved itself equal to that challenge in at least one context. It ruled unanimously that, except in extraordinary cases, police must obtain a warrant before searching the contents of an arrested person's cellphone.

This is a historic decision because allowing police to sift through the contents of a modern smartphone gives them access to a wealth of information about a person's most private and personal affairs, from emails to family photos to bank statements. As Roberts wrote in his magisterial majority opinion: "With all they contain and all they may reveal, [cellphones] hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life.'"

In the case of David L. Riley, a San Diego man arrested on weapons charges, those privacies included a photograph police found on his phone showing him in front of a car used in a drive-by shooting. Riley was eventually convicted of attempted murder.

You don't need a law degree to believe that allowing police to search through a cellphone without a warrant is an "unreasonable search" of the kind prohibited by the 4th Amendment. But to reach that conclusion, Roberts had to wrestle with a 1973 decision that gave police wide discretion to search people they arrested — including packages in their pockets — even if the search wasn't necessary to disarm the suspect or prevent the destruction of evidence.

Rather than overruling that decision, Roberts declined to extend its reasoning to cellphones, which contain the sort of records that would have been stored in private homes at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. "The fact 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," Roberts wrote.

Wednesday's decision also raises the possibility that the court might be willing to revise another precedent. In 1979, the justices upheld the warrantless tracking of phone numbers dialed by a criminal suspect, on the grounds that no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in information they turn over to a third party, such as a phone company. That precedent has been cited to uphold the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' telephone records.

Yet Roberts indicated that the cellphone data protected by Wednesday's decision "may not in fact be stored on the device itself" but in a computer "cloud," and that "it generally makes no difference." But if you have an expectation of privacy in information stored for you by a computer service, why shouldn't the government also be required to obtain a warrant to obtain your phone records? We hope that when the court addresses that question, it also will adapt the 4th Amendment to new technology.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Did the justices really understand Aereo?

    Did the justices really understand Aereo?

    In siding with broadcasters against Aereo, a pay-TV service that lets subscribers watch local stations through the Internet, the Supreme Court resorted to a simple principle: If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, the law should treat it as a duck, no matter what kind of creature it is....

  • California settles the vaccination question

    California settles the vaccination question

    Congratulations, California. With Gov. Jerry Brown's swift signature Tuesday on a tough new mandatory vaccination bill, the state has established itself as a national leader on public health. Of course, it will take some years for reality to catch up with the bill's mandates. First there will be...

  • Clock is ticking on California's lethal injection question

    Clock is ticking on California's lethal injection question

    One of the silver linings of Monday's Supreme Court ruling in Glossip vs. Gross, which upheld Oklahoma's objectionable three-drug execution protocol, was a compelling dissent by Justice Stephen G. Breyer arguing that it is "highly likely that the death penalty violates the 8th Amendment" and urging...

  • A court of one: Anthony Kennedy

    A court of one: Anthony Kennedy

    Forget the debate over whether the Supreme Court has taken a liberal turn. It is not a liberal court or a conservative court. It's a Kennedy court. On major constitutional and statutory questions, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's views matter more than anything else.

  • Justice Antonin Scalia (yes, Scalia) rules for a criminal defendant

    Justice Antonin Scalia (yes, Scalia) rules for a criminal defendant

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has received a lot of criticism for his scabrous dissenting opinions in the same-sex marriage and Affordable Care Act decisions. (Some comedians have even turned Scalia’s dissents into a song.)

  • Hey politicians: California is more than just a money bag for your 2016 campaign

    Hey politicians: California is more than just a money bag for your 2016 campaign

    My cartoon was prompted by a report by Times political columnist Cathleen Decker about how “California has become the place where politicians go to rich people's homes to talk about the lives of less-fortunate people they rarely meet.” In late June, for example: “President Obama crossed into Southern...

  • You can't compromise with culture warriors

    You can't compromise with culture warriors

    I loved reading the "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" books to my daughter.

  • Stop punishing and start helping L.A.'s homeless

    Stop punishing and start helping L.A.'s homeless

    No one likes seeing sidewalk encampments. In our experience, no one likes living in them either — if they have any other real choice. In Los Angeles, there are enough shelter beds for less than one-third of homeless people, the lowest percentage of any large city in the country. That leaves nearly...

Comments
Loading