Riley v. California: Warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest prohibited

author by John Joseph Leunig on Oct. 23, 2014

Criminal Felony Criminal  Misdemeanor Criminal  DUI-DWI 

Summary: The United States Supreme Court ruled that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual incident to arrest.

In a triumph for Fourth Amendment rights, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual incident to arrest. This holding comes from the recent decision of the Court in Riley v. California and companion case United States v. Wurie.

Chief Justice Roberts unequivocally wrote in his majority opinion “Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple— get a warrant.”  The Court declined to expand search incident to arrest to include a search of the data stored on an arrestee’s cell phone because it does not further the government interests justifying these types of searches in the past such as prevention of destruction of evidence or prevention of harm to officers.

The Court further rejected any expansion of search incident to arrest because it implicates far greater individual privacy interests than the brief physical search generally involved in a search incident to arrest. The amount of personal information a person stores on today’s smartphones or even standard cell phones is far greater than they could ever carry on their person otherwise.

In response to the United States’ argument that a search of all the data stored on a cell is materially indistinguishable from the previously allowed search of physical items found incident to arrest, Chief Justice Roberts had this to say “That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together.” As an interesting aside, this is the same Chief Justice Roberts who, during oral arguments for the companion case Wurie, seemed a bit shocked at the proposition by defense counsel that it is far from uncommon that an individual may carry more than one cell phone at a time.

If you, or someone you know, has a search or seizure issue or has been charged with a crime of any type, call Minneapolis - St. Paul criminal defense attorney John J. Leunig for a free phone consultation at (952) 540-6800.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.

© 2025 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.