WASHINGTON — Two Supreme Court cases about police searches of cellphones without warrants present vastly different views of the device. Is it a critical tool for a criminal or an American’s virtual home?
How the justices answer that question could determine the outcome of the cases being argued Tuesday. A drug dealer and a gang member want the court to rule that the searches of their cellphones after their arrest violated their right to privacy.
The Obama administration and California, defending the searches, say cellphones are no different from anything else a person might be carrying when arrested. Police may search those items without a warrant under a line of cases reaching back 40 years.
What’s more, said Donald Verrilli Jr., the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, “Cellphones are now critical tools in the commission of crimes.”
Librarians, the news media, defense lawyers and civil liberties groups on the right and left are trying to persuade the justices that they should take a broad view of the privacy issues raised when police have unimpeded access to powerful devices that might contain a wealth of personal data.
“Cellphones and other portable electronic devices are, in effect, our new homes,” the American Civil Liberties Union said in a court filing that urged the court to apply the same tough standards to cellphone searches that judges have historically applied to police intrusions into a home.
Under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, police generally need a warrant before they can conduct a search. The warrant itself must be based on “probable cause,” evidence that a crime has been committed.
The Supreme Court is expected to resolve a growing division in state and federal courts over whether cellphones deserve special protection. More than 90 percent of Americans own at least one cellphone, the Pew Research Center says.
Cases before the court
• Riley vs. California: San Diego police found indications of gang membership when they looked through David Leon Riley’s smartphone. Prosecutors used video and photographs on the smartphone to persuade a jury to convict Riley of attempted murder. California courts rejected Riley’s efforts to throw out the evidence and upheld the convictions.
• U.S. vs. Wurie: In Boston, a federal appeals court ruled that police must have a warrant before searching arrestees’ cellphones. Police arrested Brima Wurie on suspicion of selling crack cocaine and used information on his flip phone to determine where he lived. When they searched his home, with a warrant, they found crack, marijuana, a gun and ammunition. The evidence was enough to produce a conviction.
