The unanimous decision is a win for privacy advocates that argued
searching mobiles was an unreasonable intrusion.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that mobiles "hold
for many Americans the privacies of life".
The high court had weighed appeals by two people convicted based on
evidence found on their phones.
Both were convicted of crimes for which they were not initially
arrested.
Under the fourth amendment to the US constitution, police and other
government officials generally need to obtain a warrant from a judge before
they can conduct a search.
A warrant requires evidence that a crime has been committed by the
suspect.
Justice Roberts wrote in his ruling for the court that constitutional
protection applied to the contents of mobiles, as they "differ in both a
quantitative and qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on
an arrestee's person".
"Modern cell phones are not just another technological
convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many
Americans the privacies of life,'' he wrote.
"Our answer to the question of what police must do before
searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get
a warrant."
More than 90% of Americans own at least one mobile, according to the
Pew Research Center. More than 12 million people were arrested in the US in
2012, according to FBI statistics.
The Supreme Court had previously ruled that during an arrest, police do
not need a warrant to empty a suspect's pockets and examine whatever they find
in order to ensure officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.
But Wednesday's decision rules the contents of mobiles do not fall
under that rationale.
The case came to the US high court through two separate appeals.
In the first, prosecutors used video and photographs found on David
Riley's smartphone to persuade a jury to convict him of attempted murder and
other charges.
Riley had been driving on a suspended licence, and police found guns in
his car and charged him with carrying a concealed weapon, then searched his
phone.
In the second case, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of selling
crack cocaine. On grounds of "officer safety" police examined the
call log on his mobile phone and used that information to determine where he
lived.
When they searched that residence, with a warrant, they found crack
cocaine, marijuana, a gun and ammunition.
No comments:
Post a Comment