The issue concerning cell phone searches is whether it is constitutional for law enforcement officers to conduct incidental searches on people’s phones without a search warrant.
Search warrants should be required when looking for cell phone contents. This is because, as Hoogstraten argues, people have reasonable expectation of privacy that outweigh the government’s interest in enforcing the criminal law (p. 911). However, there should be no blanket requirement for police officers to obtain search warrants before they can search suspects’ personal effects. This bright-line rule provided by the Fourth Amendment needs to be given a broad, flexible and purposive interpretation that takes into account the contingencies of the circumstances in which law enforcement officers find themselves. A search warrant should only be required when the circumstances allow, that is, where it would be reasonable, and the prevailing conditions permit such an adventure. As long as the officers have a reasonable belief or suspicion that the suspect has used the phone to commit a crime, they need not obtain a warrant to search it since by the time this is done; the evidence might have been lost or destroyed. In school zones, for instance, it would be absurd to require a warrant where life is threatened by a possible terror suspect.
In Riley v California (2014), for example, the suspect’s phone had information that showed he had been involved in a street gang shooting. The court, however, went on to make it clear that such incidental searches require a warrant and would be unconstitutional without them due to their unreasonable invasion of individual privacy rights. As Robinson (438) argues, the US Supreme Court decision in Riley, the Court was cognizant of the potential impacts that its decision would have on the law enforcement’s ability to combat criminal activities. Nevertheless, the court still stated that a warrant must be sought due to the unique nature of cell phone technology that makes them different from the context of a motor vehicle search.
Works Cited
Hoogstraten, Ross. "Implications on the Constitutionality of student cell phone searches following Riley v. California." William $ Mary Bill of Rights Journal 24.3 (20179-911): 89. Web. 30 July 2016. <http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol24/>.
Robinson, David J. "The US Supreme Court says 'No' to cellphone searches incident to arrest." Illinois Bar Journal 102.9 (2014): 438. Web. 30 July 2016. <https://www.isba.org/ibj/2014/09/ussupremecourtsays%E2%80%98no%E2%80%99cell-phonesea>.