US Supreme Court ruling protects privacy of suspects’ mobile phones
Warrant needed to search a suspect's cellphone, except in emergency situations, top court rules unanimously in blow to police and prosecutors
The US Supreme Court has ruled that police officers usually need a warrant before they can search the cellphone of a suspect, a major decision in favour of privacy rights at a time of increasing concern over government encroachment in digital communications.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said there are some emergency situations in which a warrantless search would be permitted. But the unanimous 9-0 ruling goes against law enforcement agencies including the US Department of Justice, which wanted more latitude to search without having to obtain a warrant.
"We cannot deny that our decision ... will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Roberts wrote, adding that the right to privacy "comes at a cost".
Roberts acknowledged the unique nature of cellphones in contemporary life, noting that "the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy".
"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 [country's] founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant," Roberts wrote.
The ruling could have a major impact in some jurisdictions because law enforcement agencies have increasingly made cellphone searches a priority when a suspect is arrested, said Bronson James, a criminal defence attorney in Portland, Oregon.
"Police wanted the data on the cellphones because it was so expansive," he said. "This stops that practice."