Abstract
Innovations in technology provide society with tools that can make life easier and more productive. Cell phones are the most commonly used technological devices and open the world up to us; with a touch of a button answering any question becomes relatively easy. They also have an immense amount of storage capabilities which can include many private details about a person’s life. Controversy surrounds privacy rights of cell phones for many individuals and has started to raise questions in the criminal justice system. The Riley v. California case illustrates a major breakthrough for privacy in the digital age, but does it come at too high of a cost? By reviewing the influences and implications of the case we can begin to answer this question. Overall, this case was a step in the right direction for privacy rights, but has limitations in combating crime as seen in the recent San Bernardino vs. Apple case.
The Cost of Privacy: Riley v. California
As technology advances, the balance between government and individual privacy can present challenging questions in a court of law. Cell phones play a central role in contemporary life and are seemingly glued to everyone’s hands at all times. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts noted in one case brief that “According to one poll, nearly three-quarters of smartphone users report being within five feet of their phones most of the time, with twelve percent admitting that they even use their phones in the shower” (Liptak, 2014). In the 2014 Riley v. California landmark case David Riley was pulled over for expired registration tags and officers also found his drivers license was suspended. Police policy required that the car be searched and impounded. While searching his car officers found two firearms and arrested Riley. The officers subsequently seized Riley’s phone, and searched through his messages, contacts, videos, and photographs. Based in part on the data stored on Riley’s phone, the officers charged him with an unrelated shooting that had taken place several weeks prior to his arrest. Riley moved to suppress the evidence regarding his gang affiliation that had been acquired through his cell phone claiming that the warrantless search was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to privacy, but was denied this in California state court. The jury found Riley guilty and he was sentenced to life in prison. The case was appealed and went all the way to the Supreme Court where they decided that the information found in the cell phone was in fact found unconstitutionally, because the officers should have obtained a search warrant. Generally, when reviewing this case, The Court was able to make important distinctions about cell phone rights compared to other types of evidence. Analysis of Riley v. California shows that there are limitations to combat and convict criminals as seen in the recent cases.
Forty years ago, when the Supreme Court expanded the right of police to search people they took into custody as well as the possessions they were carrying, the smartphone was the stuff of science fiction. In the Riley v. California case there was an overall influence that guided the outcome of the case. Developments in cell phone technology have changed the way people communicate and store private material. Sensitive data is now stored and accessed via Internet-enabled smartphones. Information on smartphones can reveal intimate details about someone’s life including financial data, health records, and even GPS tracking. Location information is a standard feature on many smartphones and can trace someone’s specific movements down to the minute, and even a particular building. As these smartphone functions become widely popular, many users are increasingly concerned about privacy and security on their devices. When drafting the Constitution, the Framers were not able to consider how the Fourth Amendment would apply to the immense amount of modern technological advances we have now because such ideas were unfathomable at the time. Judges today have to be willing to interpret the Constitution with this in mind in order to settle cases fairly. Roberts concluded for a unanimous Court in Riley, “The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” The main question in this case was to determine if the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone was discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Recognizing the significant role that cell phones play in the lives of many people was a major influence in the Supreme Court decision. A unanimous Court recognized that allowing the government access to the “deeply sensitive information on cell phones often contain would authorize the type of broad and intrusive searches against which the Fourth Amendment protects (Clark, 2015).” Even though Riley did commit a heinous crime the Supreme Court had to look beyond his actions to determine that it was unconstitutional to search his cell phone without a warrant because of the massive amount of information that can be stored on it.
Precedent
Precedent is a court decision that operates as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law in later cases. The use of precedent has been justified as providing fairness and helped lead to the ruling in Riley v. California. The Supreme Court cited three main case precedents, Chimel v. California (1969), United States v. Robinson (1973) and Arizona v. Gant (2009). In Chimel v. California the Court ruled against a warrantless search because it was not necessary either to protect the police officers’ safety or prevent the loss of evidence. Courts dismissed the concern for officer safety noting that “digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as weapon to harm an arresting officer or used to effectuate the arrestee’s escape” (Moore, 2014). Law enforcement can still check the exterior of a cell phone to make sure it cannot be used as weapon, but the search has to end there according to this precedent. Focusing on the destruction of evidence rationale from Chimel the state of California argued that the search was justified because there were threats to remote wiping. The Court dismissed this as a justification for a warrantless search, because Chimel only applies to direct threats from the arrestee, and not to a third party wiping the content (Moore, 2014). Cell phones provide access to communication records of third parties whose privacy interests are also effected. Technology cases presents new challenges because of all the different aspects that must be deliberated in order to reach a fair verdict.
The Supreme Court for the Riley case had to determine if a cell phone was comparable to other forms of property that could be found on an arrestee. Comparing precedent from the United States v. Robinson (1973) case, the Court permitted a search of a pack of cigarettes found on a suspect’s person because of a reasonable concern over potential loss of evidence. This became known as the incident search to arrest exception The Supreme Court for the Riley case had to decide if a cell phone was comparable to the cigarette package or an entirely different category of property. It may seem like an obvious answer, but to determine this the Court to spent a substantial amount of time examining the unique characteristics of a cell phone. The search of a cigarette package is a narrow search, but the search of a cell phone is hugely invasive. When compared to other physical objects, the Court emphasized the vast quantitative and qualitative differences of the modern phone (Moore, 2014). Chief Justice Roberts reasoned: “A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search considered in Robinson.” (Anderson, 2016). Browsing through a cell phone can reveal as much information, if not more than the search of an entire home. A lot of details had to be taken into account when considering the immense storage capacity of a cell phone. The existence of the cloud on mobile devices was another aspect the Court had to focus on. The cloud would allow law enforcement to access vast amounts of digital information that is not even stored on the device itself. Which would likely “extend well beyond the papers and effects in the physical proximity of the arrestee” (Ozurovich, 2014). Therefore, this provides yet another example of how cell phones were distinguished from other types of personal property and the precedent from Robinson was deemed inapplicable in the Riley case and all cases like this to follow.
Searching a vehicle is vastly different than the search of a cell phone. The Court determined this by rejecting the precedent of Gant v. Arizona in the Riley case. Arguments from the court of California thought law enforcement should be able to search a cell phone when “it is reasonable to believe that the phone contains evidence of the crime of arrest” which was the standard in Gant (Ozurovich, 2014). The Supreme Court determined that Gant is unique to searches of vehicles not to cell phones carried on the arrestee. Verdict of Gant prohibited searches of evidence of past crimes. Data on cell phones can trace back many years depending on the type of phone and its storage capability. Defending California’s use of precedent in this case the Court stated “it is reasonable to expect that incriminating information will be found on a cell phone regardless of when the crime occurred.” (Ozurovich, 2014). Taking all of this information into account the Court declined to use the reasoning in Gant to cell phones in the Riley case. The scope of this conclusion for the future has prevented law enforcement from conducting warrantless searches of cell phones even if they are only searching for evidence of the crime of arrest. I believe this was a very vital aspect for the court to include because it will prevent future situations like this from occurring.
The Court’s ruling in Riley has led to implications in our justice system today. After the outcome of the Riley v. California case Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the decision would make law enforcement more difficult. “Cellphones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals,” he wrote. “Privacy comes at a cost” (Liptak, 2014). Fast forward a year this statement can be applied to the Apple v. San Bernardino case. A California judge ordered the company to unlock an iPhone used by one of the shooters in a recent attack that killed fourteen people in San Bernardino. Apple refused, but the FBI says that it may have found a way to unlock the attacker’s iPhone without Apple’s assistance (Lee, 2016). A huge invasion of privacy is at stake here and many questions have begun to arise about the government’s power to conduct such measures like this that could potentially invade the privacy of all iPhone users.
While the FBI’s intentions can be seen as admirable, this decision could have serious consequences on the future of law and cases involving cell phone privacy rights. If Apple is forced by the Court or if the FBI is able to hack into the phone without Apple’s assistance, it is hard to not wonder at what lengths will they go to invade the privacy of everyday individuals? Apprehensions related to this can be linked back to the Riley case and the concerns the decision Chief Justice Roberts predicted would happen.
Implications
Technology is viewed as one of the fastest growing industries in our world today. New devices are constantly put on the market, each one a bit more innovative than the other. While these advances are great for improving the productivity of society, looking at them in the context of the verdict reached Riley they present setbacks for our justice system. Comparing the Robinson and Riley cases the Supreme Court was able to determine that the contents found in a cigarette pack are clearly different than the data stored in a cell phone. Yet, by distinguishing these two cases it has sent a confusing message to lower courts trying to apply pre-digital precedent to digital data. Thus, with respect to new technologies other than cell phones, distinct circuit splits have emerged, as courts feel entitled to certain leeway in adhering or failing to adhere to pre-digital precedent (Ozurovich, 2014). The Supreme Court limited itself by only including that police may conduct a warrantless search incident to arrest of a cell phone, not other smart devices such an iPad, Apple Watch, or other new tablets. Although, this decision did bring the Fourth Amendment into the modern era it was not as comprehensive as it needed to be to support advances in technology beyond cell phones. Lower courts now have to figure out what constitutes a “search” or “seizure” in the new era with respect to other digital data like emails.
Conclusion
A decade ago officers might have occasionally been able to find a highly personal item on arrestees such as a diary, but today almost every American owns a cell phone. A recent survey conducted by Pew Research Center concluded that ninety-two percent of American adults own a cell phone and sixty-eight percent of these cell phones are considered a smartphone (Smith, 2105). Whether we want to admit it or not cell phones play a highly vital role in our everyday lives. With the touch of a button smartphones can be used to do things that were once unimaginable. The decision in Riley v. California to require a search warrant for cell phones can be seen as a breakthrough for privacy advocates. However, to law enforcement it can be seen as a setback for investigations because it limits evidence officers can use to convict criminals. To combat these limitations government operations have started to create new means of obtaining data, as shown in the recent Apple v. San Bernardino case. Keeping this information in mind, huge questions remain such as: What does all of this mean for privacy in the digital age? Is our information ever really considered private? The world is at our hands in the digital age. We have so much to learn and benefit from the use of technology. The key here is to be mindful of its capabilities by being aware of the new advances and laws created in the realms of privacy.
References
Anderson, D. (2016). Riley v. California. Salem Press Encyclopedia,
CLARK, W. (2015). PROTECTING THE PRIVACIES OF DIGITAL LIFE: RILEY V. CALIFORNIA, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT’S PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT, AND SEARCH PROTOCOLS FOR CELL PHONE SEARCH WARRANTS. Boston College Law Review, 56(5), 1981-2018.
Lee, D. (2016, March 22). Apple’s FBI Row is Only Just Beginning. BBC News. 2016
Liptak, A. (2014, June 25). Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones. New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2016.
Moore, J. L., Langton, J., & Pochron, J. (2014). THE COST OF PRIVACY: RILEY V. CALIFORNIA’S IMPACT ON CELL PHONE SEARCHES. Journal Of Digital Forensics, Security & Law, 9(3), 7-18.
Ozurovich, K. (2014). RILEY V. CALIFORNIA–CELL PHONES AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. Loyola Of Los Angeles Law Review, 48(2), 507-524.