In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has said the answer is no. See Riley v California. While officers may search the arrestee to prevent destruction of evidence or protect the officer from harm, searching a cell phone serves neither purpose. Instead the intrusion to a defendant’s privacy far outweighs those concerns. And an officer can protect the phone’s contents from being remotely erased by following certain procedures.
According to the court, cell phones differ from other physical objects because of their immense storage capacity. Cell phones “could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps or newspapers,” the Court wrote. In this digital age, the person who doesn’t carry a “cache of sensitive personal information with them” is the exception.
If you have questions about this or another related criminal or traffic matter, please contact Matt Keenan at 847-568-0160 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.
(Besides Skokie, Matt Keenan also serves the communities of Arlington Heights, Chicago, Deerfield, Des Plaines, Evanston, Glenview, Morton Grove, Mount Prospect, Niles, Northbrook, Park Ridge, Rolling Meadows, Wilmette and Winnetka.)