iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Warrantless Cellphone Searches Approved By U.S. Court

Warrantless Cellphone Search

First Posted: 03/ 1/2012 11:35 am Updated: 03/ 1/2012 1:26 pm


By Terry Baynes

(Reuters) - U.S. police can search a cell phone for its number without having a warrant, according to a federal appeals court ruling.

Officers in Indiana found a number of cell phones at the scene of a drug bust, and searched each phone for its telephone number. Having the numbers allowed the government to subpoena the owners' call histories, linking them to the drug-selling scheme.

One of the suspects, Abel Flores-Lopez, who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, argued on appeal that the police had no right to search the phone's contents without a warrant.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit rejected that argument on Wednesday, finding that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.

The case gave the court an occasion to examine just how far police can go when it comes to searching electronic gadgets.

"Lurking behind this issue is the question whether and when a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or other type of computer (whether called a 'computer' or not) can be searched without a warrant," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

He raised the example of the iCam, which allows someone to use a phone to connect to a home-computer web camera, enabling someone to search a house interior remotely.

"At the touch of a button, a cell phone search becomes a house search," he wrote.

Posner compared the cell phone to a diary. Just as police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy an owner's address, they should be able to turn on a cell phone to learn its number, he wrote. But just as they're forbidden from examining love letters tucked between the pages of an address book, so are they forbidden from exploring letters in the files of a phone.

Prosecutors argued that in an age when people can wipe their cell phones clean remotely, officers are under pressure to obtain data before it is destroyed.

The court acknowledged that the actual risk that one of the suspects would have been able to destroy the phone's contents was minimal in this case. But so was the invasion of privacy, limited to telephone numbers.

The court left the question of just how far police can go in searching a phone's contents for another day.

A lawyer for Flores-Lopez was not immediately available for comment.

(Reporting By Terry Baynes)

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

By Terry Baynes (Reuters) - U.S. police can search a cell phone for its number without having a warrant, according to a federal appeals court ruling. Officers in Indiana ...
By Terry Baynes (Reuters) - U.S. police can search a cell phone for its number without having a warrant, according to a federal appeals court ruling. Officers in Indiana ...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 507
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
09:44 PM on 03/03/2012
Even court orders are routinely given on the barest of checking, but more on the relationship, reputation and position of the official bringing the request. Its degenerated, in many cases, to a mere formality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ur2nutty4me
01:06 PM on 03/03/2012
Prosecutors argued that in an age when people can wipe their cell phones clean remotely, officers are under pressure to obtain data before it is destroyed.

I guess turning of the phone when found thereby preserving the information and keeping it safe from remote access and deletion never occurred to the yahoos. Turn the phone off while getting a court order never occurred to brilliant far right justices and law enforcement officials that are determined to give us all colostomy's without consent. We will have no rights what so ever if this assault on common sense and the public's right to privacy and freedom is not stopped.
03:19 PM on 03/02/2012
If these phones were found in an actually drug bust (where drugs were found) then I don't see why a warrant would be needed.... Do police need a warrant to test DNA from blood found next to a dead body?

I'm a huge proponent of putting an end to the government GROSSLY overstepping it's bounds (and levels of competent ability) when it comes to dealing with issues of technology but I don't dont quite understand the problem in this circumstance.
02:55 PM on 03/02/2012
The next question becomes: can they climb into the clouds for your phone book?

This is a really slippery slope...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
menschmaschine5
12:39 PM on 03/02/2012
I really don't see the issue here so long as the only thing the police look at is the phone number. As soon as they start reading text messages, e-mail, facebook messages, memos, etc, it becomes an invasion of privacy.
photo
ResidentPragmatist
My dog is the best person I know.
03:08 PM on 03/02/2012
You're right. Because the police are SOOO trustworthy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mmike1969
11:06 AM on 03/02/2012
I want my 4s to have two pin codes:
Code 1 to unlock the phone
Code 2 to wipe the memory and brick it immediately...

Get on it Apple or Apps developers.
02:17 PM on 03/02/2012
SeekDroid for Android is very nice for what you want, but you have IOS.

Lose your phone and seekdroid will activate the gps remotely to locate it. Need it wiped. Seekdroid will do that for you too. Love this app. Best part about it is you can have become a hidden app on the phone so a thief or snooper would never know.
photo
ResidentPragmatist
My dog is the best person I know.
03:09 PM on 03/02/2012
How do you activate any of that if you've been arrested and your phone is taken? If you can't get to a phone or computer to activate it, how can that work?
09:26 AM on 03/02/2012
people he's a criminal who was dealing that horrible stuff called marijuana...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gabe A Davis
I am an American.
10:10 AM on 03/02/2012
How do you know it was marijauna?
03:14 PM on 03/02/2012
does it matter. Prohibition is a failed policy
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:00 PM on 03/03/2012
Oh no......NOT marijuana??
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sylas Black
07:49 AM on 03/02/2012
Why don't we just throw the Bill of Rights completely out the window!
09:37 PM on 03/03/2012
we are, it just takes time.
07:35 AM on 03/02/2012
Oooops..there goes another one of our Inalienable rights....For the life of me, I cannot understand how TPUBS can continue to give up personal freedoms and rights and do it while waving the flag and in the name of God.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kate Lynn
02:39 AM on 03/02/2012
OH HELL NO!
12:30 AM on 03/02/2012
Privacy is not applicable anywhere 100% now a days :(
11:08 PM on 03/01/2012
You gotta love this statement:

"The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit rejected that argument on Wednesday, finding that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches"

Isn't a "slight" invasion of privacy still an invasion of privacy which the Fourth Amendment bans?

I mean, it either is or it isn't, in this particular case it appears that the defendant's Fourth Amendment right to privacy was indeed "slightly" invaded...
photo
ResidentPragmatist
My dog is the best person I know.
03:10 PM on 03/02/2012
Considering the cops can break down the door to your home without a warrant, I'm not surprised. The Bill of Rights has become nothing more than kindling.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LemonMeringue
Happy Birthday, Steve Jobs - Feb. 24th
11:00 PM on 03/01/2012
It seems we have less freedom every d@mn day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
E V
10:56 PM on 03/01/2012
Some of the SCOTUS judges have admitted they don't know basic things about technology, such as how texts are sent. Expect these sort of decisions to be the status quo until the current "generation" of judges are replaced with people with a more innate understanding of these things.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sfurr
01:22 PM on 03/02/2012
And what, pray tell, was wrong with the analogy drawn by the judge in this case.

Apparently it is indeed a matter of settled law that police may consult a diary found to determine the address of the owner. If that is the case, how is consulting the cell phone *just* for the number distinguishable, based on the technology, in any meaningful way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
E V
10:22 PM on 03/02/2012
Because a diary often contains the address in the front or back of the book - but phones, particularly smart phones, are all different. And even tech savvy people would be unlikely to find it without some searching - let alone someone who isn't tech savvy (they may never find it).
That being said a smart phone can contain FAR more confidential information than a diary. A diary might share your personal thoughts, a smartphone will likely have a calendar, emails and email account information, bank information, phone call history, text messages, social networking information, medical information, etc, etc.
It's apples and oranges, and my background in investigative criminology not only lets me know that it's entirely different than what is typically gleaned from diaries in investigations - but that law enforcement will use even the slightest crack in privacy to force their way in. So looking for your phone number is going to be "really difficult!" for them as the fumble through all your apps, settings, etc "looking" for your phone number.
09:58 PM on 03/01/2012
ahhh sophistry and the ol' totalitarian tiptoe ...