Keith H. Rutman, Attorney at Law
Call Today 24/7 For A Free Consultation
Toll Free: 888-714-6354
local: 619-573-4988
Main navigation

It's not my job as your attorney to tell you what you want to hear, it’s to tell you what you need to know

Drug crime and other arrests need warrant to search cellphones

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision recently in giving a broad cloak of privacy to cellphones. Thus, for example, when someone is arrested for a drug crime in California, the police must get a search warrant to look through the contents of any cellphone taken from the arrestee. The decision applied also to remotely stored data that is stored by a service provider in an Internet “cloud,” and which can be accessed by a hand-held device.

The Court cut out a narrow exception for truly exigent circumstances but ruled that, even then, the search would have to be approved after the fact. The decision caused the reversal of the criminal conviction of a San Diego man and another individual because information from their cellphones was used to build a case against them. The decision departed from the general principle that a warrantless search can be made incident to a lawful arrest.

There is now a limit on a search incident to arrest: it does not apply to digital hand-held devices. The Court did not have to overrule any prior jurisprudence. Instead, it simply carved out an exception that applies to digital communications devices taken from the arrestee.

The Court noted that, today, people carry cellphones filled with a multitude of personal information. It defines every nook and cranny of a person’s existence. Since police cannot go to a house and make an extensive search without a warrant, they also cannot access the cellphone, which may hold even more information than they may have found by searching the home.

Residents of California who are arrested and charged with a crime, including a drug crime, are now protected from an invasive cellphone search, unless a search warrant describing the material sought, and the probable cause to allow it, is duly approved. This is in accordance with Fourth Amendment privacy concerns. Nowadays, the depth of private materials stored digitally is so extensive that a search of that depth and breadth would have to be first approved by a magistrate upon a narrow delineation of what is to be searched, and upon the establishment of probable cause to do it.

Source: scotusblog.com, "Opinion analysis: Broad cloak of privacy for cellphones", Lyle Denniston, June 25, 2014

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Testimonials

  • "Keith Rutman isn't just a great lawyer—he is figuratively and literally a life saver, having saved my life twice. First in a figurative way. I was facing serous charges and was fearing the worst – a lengthy prison sentence. He applied his expert legal knowledge to secure a positive solution to my problem. It far exceeded my expectations and I received probation. He offered me essential advice on both legal and strategic matters. Mr. Rutman was always immediately available to assist me. I would expect this kind of outstanding service from any lawyer who stands at the top of his profession." Learn More...
  • "Dear Mr. Rutman, I can't begin to thank you for all you have done for Jarrett and Jordan - specifically Jordan; you have gone over and above what most attorneys would do, and treated Jordan so well accepting his "I don't know what your talking about mentality". Jordan is greatly relieved it is over but I don't think he understands fully what is expected of him for the next 12 months." - Judy, Jarrett and Jordan Learn More...
  • "Mr. Rutman did a great job in my dispute over the accuracy of my criminal record against the State of California, and he got the Court to order it changed in my favor. I would highly recommend Mr. Rutman, he is diligent and prompt and very knowledgeable. He would be my first choice if I ever need an attorney again, and he should be yours." - Jerry S Learn More...
  • "Keith and I have handled very complicated trials together including multiple bank robberies and murder cases. I highly endorse Keith. He is always a well prepared, caring, and aggressive criminal defense attorney." Learn More...
  • "I opposed Keith in a federal civil rights claim brought in federal court. Keith was creative and determined to advocate his clients interests and was a pleasure to work with. A true professional in every regard. Enthusiastically recommended and endorsed!" Learn More...