Labels be gone!

E-Label Act rids your gadgets of ugly labels

News

Apple settles ebook price-fixing trial outside the courts

News

Alleged Apple tax avoidance deal with Ireland under investigation by the European Commission

iCloud

Norway deems iCloud agreement 'convoluted and unclear', breaks law

News

Apple faces fine and temporary closure in Italy for not offering free two-year warranty

News

Apple wins preliminary U.S. sales injunction of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

News

Apple settles 4G advertising case in Australia, agrees to pay $2.25 million penalty

News

Chicago judge tentatively dismisses Apple-Motorola patent case

News

Samsung and Apple reportedly fail to settle on patent dispute

News

Samsung talks smack about "slavish adoration" to Apple in court

News

Court asks Apple and HTC to negotiate patent dispute settlement

News

Apple wins iPhone5.com domain

News

Apple motions to dismiss Siri class action lawsuit

News

17 more states join e-book class action lawsuit against Apple, Steve Jobs involvement surfaces

News

Apple claims Samsung willfully spoiled evidence pertinent to court cases

News

Proview lowered asking price of iPad trademark from $2 billion to $63 million after Apple offered $16 million

News

iPad trademark battle in China blocked from getting into California

News

Early iPod touch buyers invited to join class-action antitrust suit against Apple

News

Apple fighting for control of iPhone5.com domain

News

Apple wants to bar Steve Jobs biography as evidence in Samsung court case

< >

Supreme court rules police need a warrant to search cell phones

iOS lock screen

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant to search the content inside a cell phone of a person who has been arrested.

The decision is the result of two cases that were brought to the Supreme Court, Riley v. California and U.S. v. Wurie, both of which involved police who searched the content of cell phones of people who had been arrested but without asking for a warrant beforehand.

However, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nine members of the Supreme Court all agreed that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested."

The court did state there will be a few exceptions to this rule, such as cases that involve kidnappings and bomb threats that generate what the judges consider to be "exigent circumstances". However, today's decision finally does offer solid guidance on what the police can and cannot do when they arrest people with cell phones.

What do you think about this new court ruling and do you support the fact that police will now need to get a warrant before they can search inside the contents of a cell phone?

Source: U.S. Supreme Court

Have something to say about this story? Share your comments below! Need help with something else? Submit your question!

12
loading...
0
loading...
51
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

New and updated apps: Shazam, Fitbit, Amazon Music and more!

Next up →

How to downgrade from Yosemite to Mavericks

Reader comments

Supreme court rules police need a warrant to search cell phones

9 Comments

Thrilled that it was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. We've seen so much erosion of our civil rights in the past decade, it's good to see the Supremes turn the clock back a bit and draw a very clear line in the sand.

Thanks Peter, you've already said about exactly what I was gonna write. I couldn't agree more.
I also hope this one ruling is just a start as there are so many other examples of civil rights erosions in out society on recent years.

Sent from the iMore App

A legal victory for the average person. These are rare in the twenty-first century in the U.S. Savor it while we all can....

It really is a common sense rulling. Just because a person is arrested, the police cannot search his house for evidence. Same with a laptop he may be carrying at the time of arrest. The phone is no different. A search warrant protects the person's rights, but also protects the possible evidence that may be used in court.

If it were up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they would not have ruled this way, so I'm thankful it was not up to them...!