• By
  • Jess Bravin


In this Dec. 18, 2013 file photo, singer Justin Bieber takes a “selfie” with a fan at a premiere in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Dan Steinberg, Invision)
Associated Press

Did the Supreme Court just throw a lifeline to teen heartthrob Justin Bieber?

The justices Friday agreed to decide when searching a cellphone requires a warrant—the very kind of evidence that Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies believe could link the “Believe” singer to the egging of a neighbor’s house.

Deputies searched Mr. Bieber’s Calabasas, Calif., house on Tuesday and seized his iPhone, among other items. The device could contain photos or video related to the egging, authorities think.

 But Sgt. Ernie Masson, reached at the sheriff’s Malibu/Lost Hills station, said that while deputies had a search warrant for the Bieber house, he could not say whether it specifically covered the phone.

Some warrants authorizing search of a home list items like cellphones and computers, others don’t. Because the Fourth Amendment requires that warrants “particularly” describe what’s to be searched and “the persons or things to be seized,” courts sometimes exclude evidence that falls outside the scope of a warrant.

In cases where deputies find an item the warrant doesn’t cover, they generally return to the magistrate for a “piggyback warrant” to add it, Sgt. Masson said.

It’s unclear whether the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in its cellphone cases will have any significance for People v. Bieber. But the 19-year-old Canadian singer’s case underscores how significant smartphones have become to investigating crime, from the drug and shooting offenses before the Supreme Court to alleged celebrity vandalism in the hills above Malibu.



For the latest Washington news,

For outside analysis,