A woman uses her smartphone outside the U.S. Supreme Court after a major ruling on cellphone privacy by the court June 25, 2014. | Getty

All justices but one joined in the majority opinion.

SCOTUS: Warrant for phone search


The Supreme Court struck a major blow in favor of digital privacy Wednesday by ruling unanimously that police generally need a warrant before searching the cellphone or personal electronic device of a person arrested.

In a sweeping opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts resoundingly rejected arguments that searches of digital devices for information are comparable to searches law enforcement officers often conduct for contraband after making an arrest.

Story Continued Below


The chief justice went even further, arguing that the privacy concerns at stake in the search of a phone are even more acute than those involved in the search of a home — the place traditionally considered most sacrosanct under American law.

( Also on POLITICO: Aereo loses copyright fight at Supreme Court)


The court’s ruling was surprisingly broad in both its protection of privacy and in its savvy about the evolution of modern technology.

At oral arguments in the case, Roberts seemed surprised that an individual might have a legitimate reason to carry two cellphones. And Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to favor a result that would have allowed police to conduct a warrantless phone search for evidence of the crime a person was arrested for, but not other crimes. That distinction is considered and rejected in the majority opinion Scalia joined Wednesday.

Roberts acknowledged that the court’s decision would make it harder for police to fight crime but said that fact did not justify excusing them from getting a warrant before conducting searches of cellphones and smartphones.

( PHOTOS: 21 landmark SCOTUS rulings)

“We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime,” Roberts wrote for the court. “Cell phones have become important tools … among members of criminal enterprises and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost.”

All the justices except for Justice Samuel Alito joined Roberts’ majority opinion. Alito agreed with the court’s basic holding on warrants but said he’d give legislatures more leeway to set rules limiting the warrant requirement in certain circumstances.

The Justice Department vowed to work with law enforcement agencies to ensure “full compliance” with Wednesday’s decision.

“We will make use of whatever technology is available to preserve evidence on cell phones while seeking a warrant, and we will assist our agents in determining when exigent circumstances or another applicable exception to the warrant requirement will permit them to search the phone immediately without a warrant,” said DOJ spokeswoman Ellen Canale. “Our commitment to vigorously enforcing the criminal laws and protecting the public while respecting the privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment is unwavering.”

The ruling in a pair of related cases is the latest effort of the highest court to grapple with the way advancing technology has outgrown the legal framework developed decades ago about what law enforcement is allowed to look at when arresting an individual.

The ruling gives guidance to law enforcement across the country, where federal and state courts have split on the question of whether a warrant is needed to look through a suspect’s cellphone at arrest, and how far they can go.

Jump to sidebar section