The Supreme Court recognized last month, in a 9-0 ruling, that cell phones are more than just a convenience—they actually hold the “privacies of life.” The Court’s holding in the case of Riley v. California marks a significant milestone for privacy rights in the digital age, by requiring police to secure a warrant to access the personal information found on an individual’s cell phone.
Chief Justice John Roberts called cell phones “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude that they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Roberts went on to explain that the principles behind this cell phone privacy are the same principles the founding fathers fought for during the American Revolution—protection against unwarranted searches. In other words, unauthorized invasion into the personal and revealing information we can simply carry in our hand is tantamount to a home invasion.
The Supreme Court recognized just how revealing information on someone’s phone can be: “An Internet search and browsing history can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of a disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cellphone can reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a standard feature on many smartphones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only town but also within a particular building.”
One of the concerns over the case, however, was that warrantless cell phone searches could protect police officers and prevent the destruction of evidence. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed based on the rationale that, if the phone was not a threat to an officer, then the data held on the phone certainly could not be. Justice Roberts did note the drawbacks to such a policy, writing that “cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. Privacy comes at a cost.”
It seems that recently more and more cases are involving privacy rights in the uncharted territory of new technology. For example, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office found itself in a dispute with Facebook last summer after requesting that Facebook hand over almost full account information for 381 users, including photos and private messages. Facebook is now appealing last summer’s ruling that Facebook “had no standing to contest the search warrants since it was simply an online repository of data, not a target of the criminal investigation.” Facebook argues that the records violate a user’s constitutional right to privacy from unreasonable searches.
Now, in Riley v. California, to see the Supreme Court make a decision on such a millennial subject is truly significant. This takes the Fourth Amendment and applies it to the intangible digital information of the 21st century, showing that this era requires a different kind of decision-making.