VIA Times – July 2014 Issue Vital News, Vibrant Views for Asian Americans in Chicago & Midwest
By: Mark Javier
The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Riley v. California, held that the police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. The decision considered two separate cases in which an individual was arrested and cell phone data was obtained without a warrant. Subsequently, the information was used to initiate additional investigations and charges against the arrestee. The first case involved a person originally arrested for weapons charges. An officer searched the defendant after his arrest and accessed information on his cell phone that the officer believed to be used in association with a street gang. At the police station two hours later, a detective specializing in gangs further examined the phone’s digital contents. Based on photographs and videos that the detective found, the defendant was charged in connection to a shooting that occurred a few weeks prior to the search. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the cell phone search and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, reversing his convictions. The other case involved the arrest of a person for participating in a drug sale. At the police station, the officers seized a cell phone from the defendant and noticed multiple calls coming from a source identified as “my house” on the cell phone. The officers opened the phone and discovered the number associated with the “my house” contact. They traced the number to what was suspected to be the defendant’s apartment. The officers obtained a search warrant for the apartment and found drugs inside. The defendant claimed that the information forming the basis of the search warrant was obtained unconstitutionally, therefore invalidating the search warrant. The Supreme Court agreed and the reversal of his conviction for weapons and drug charges was upheld. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution states that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against the unreasonable searches and seizures…and that no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause. The law does allow for warrantless searches and seizures in a specific number of circumstances. However, Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they fall under one of the specific circumstances. One of the circumstances that allow for Warrantless searches is when someone gives consent to a police officer to search a dwelling or vehicle. If a person gives consent, a constitutional challenge is more difficult. The Riley case instructs us that our cell phone, and other digital devices, are protected under the Fourth Amendment. Police officers do not have the ability, generally, to search the contents of those devises unless we give consent or some other circumstance exists that allows for Warrantless searches. Even if a person believes he or she has nothing to hide, they still have the right to deny law enforcement access to their cell phone.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions contained in this column are solely those of the author, and do not express the views and opinions of VIA Times, its publisher, or any other employee or contributor of the publication. Nothing in the column is intended to be legal advice or counsel, and does not create an attorneyclient relationship between the reader and author. Every legal case is unique and requires professional evaluation on a case-by-case basis. This column is not meant to replace the sound legal analysis of individual consultation with an attorney, and is meant for informational purposes only. If you have concerns about your legal rights or aare faced with legal action, consult a licensed attorney
Great meeting super-talented Chef Michael of Crowne Plaza Hotel Rosemont at the recently-held cocktail reception. From left: Joe Mauricio, Cher Jacobsen, GM, Chef Michael, Girlie Pascual, Veronica and James dela Cruz.
