While in King, the Court minimized the privacy interest impacted by DNA collection, in Riley, the Court relied on the mere potential for privacy harm to hold
warrantless cell phone searches unconstitutional.
on US Supreme Court Clarifies Law on
Warrantless Cell Phone Searches.
Not exact matches
Nonetheless, the Court held that some
warrantless searches of
cell phones might be permitted in an emergency: when the government's interests are so compelling that a
search would be reasonable.
A
warrantless search of Wurie's
cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable
search and seizure and any evidence stemming from that illegal
search should have been suppressed.
The only time a
warrantless search of a
cell phone would be permissible is if the government's interest is «so compelling» that a
search would be reasonable.
Are national security and public health concerns actually served by
warrantless searches of
cell phones at the border?
And I have also written about the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Riley v California, 573 US 1 (2014) where Chief Justice John Roberts held that a
warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a
cell phone during an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional.
The majority allows
warrantless searches, in part, based on a finding that the privacy impact of a
cell phone search incident to arrest can be meaningfully mitigated by the application of a «tailored» inspection.
Christian Escarcega was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and appeals denial of a motion to suppress evidence of the
warrantless search of his
cell phone.