LEGAL
NEW RULES ON WHEN
CELL PHONES CAN BE
SEARCHED PURSUANT
TO A LAWFUL ARREST
I
t is becoming harder for law enforcement to access
information on cell phones of persons they have
arrested without first securing a search warrant.
Historically, an officer could search a person, and
all items on his/her person, pursuant to a lawful arrest.
However, that has recently been challenged successfully
when it comes to cell phones.
On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in the
case of Riley v. California, ruled unanimously that “police
generally may not, without a warrant, search digital
information on a cell phone seized from an individual
who has been arrested.”
Very recently, on March 3, 2016, the Ninth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals held, in the case of U.S. v. Lara that the
Fourth Amendment waiver signed by a person released
on probation or parole does not give law enforcement the
right to search his/her cell phone without a warrant.
Facts in Riley
Riley was stopped for driving with expired tags and it
was then learned that his license had been suspended.
His car was impounded and searched and they discovered
two handguns and he was arrested. “An officer searched
Riley incident to the arrest and found items associated
with the “Bloods” street gang. He also seized a cell phone
from Riley’s pants pocket.”
The phone was a “smart phone,” and the officer accessed
information on the phone and noticed that some words
were preceded by the letters “CK” – a label that, he
believed, stood for “Crip Killers,” a slang term for
members of the Bloods gang.”
“The police also found photographs of Riley standing
in front of a car they suspected had been involved in
8
California Police Chief | www.californiapolicechiefs.org
By: Martin J. Mayer, General Counsel
California Police Chiefs’ Association
a shooting a few weeks earlier. Riley was ultimately
charged, in connection with that earlier shooting, with
firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic
firearm, and attempted murder.”
“Prior to trial, Riley moved to suppress all evidence
that the police had obtained from his cell phone. He
contended that the searches of his phone violated the
Fourth Amendment, because they had been performed
without a warrant and were not otherwise justified
by exigent circumstances. The trial court rejected that
argument. Riley was convicted on all three counts and
received an enhanced sentence of 15 years to life in
prison.”
The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California
Supreme Court denied the petition for review but the U.S.
Supreme Court accepted the case.
Court Discussion in Riley
The Court noted that the Fourth Amendment protects
against unreasonable searches and seizures and “the
ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is
‘reasonableness.’” As such, ‘in the absence of a warrant,
a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific
exception to the warrant requirement.’” Since 1914, it
has been well accepted that a search pursuant to a lawful
arrest constitutes an exception to the warrant requirement.
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383.
In 1969, the Court, in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752,
held that, “When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to
remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in
order to resist arrest or effect his escape. In addition, it is
entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for
and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to