Should Cops Be Able to Search Cellphones Without Warrant?
You can’t go anywhere without seeing someone on their smartphone these days. Whether they are calling a friend, playing a game or searching the web, people are always connected to their cellphones. These people no doubt have the belief that what is in their phone will remain private. However, smartphones are now at the center of an ongoing debate on whether law enforcement can search your cellphone without a warrant and states are taking differing views on the issue.
The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Law enforcement must first obtain a warrant from a judge supported by probable cause in order to search any person, person’s home or personal property. It is important to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney who can help you prove the evidence against you was seized illegally if your Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Smallwood v. State of Florida
Cedric Smallwood was arrested in Florida for allegedly robbing a store at gunpoint and his cellphone was seized by a police officer. The cop searched the phone and found a photo of a gun similar to the one described at the robbery along with a stack of money. Smallwood moved to suppress the search of his cellphone but the trial court denied his request. Smallwood was subsequently convicted of robbery and sentenced to prison.
The Florida Court of Appeal upheld the decision, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) in which the Supreme Court held it was reasonable to search an arrestee and the objects in his possession. However, the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeal in Smallwood v. State of Florida, 113 So.3d 7254 (2013). The Supreme Court ruled that the justices responsible for making the Robinson decision in 1973 could not have predicted the great amount of personal information available on smartphones today. Allowing officers to search cellphones for evidence would be similar to giving law enforcement access to the arrestee’s house, the court said.
People v. Diaz
The California Supreme Court came up with a different ruling on the same issue in People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84 (2011). Like Smallwood, Gregory Diaz was arrested and officers searched his cellphone. Cops found a text message linking Diaz to the crime of selling ecstasy. A motion to suppress the message was denied and Diaz was convicted of a felony.
The Court of Appeal later decided the search did not violate Diaz’s Fourth Amendment rights. Unlike in Florida, the California Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Citing Robinson, the court said the cellphone was personal property immediately associated with Diaz’s person. The court stated that being arrested comes with a reasonable expectation to be searched and any item in possession of the arrestee is subject to search upon arrest, no matter what type of item it is.
United States v. Andres Lopez-Cruz
The Diaz decision was far different from a recent U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal one made in United States v. Andres Lopez-Cruz No. 11-50551 involving police taking phone calls.
During a nighttime traffic stop in California, Andres Lopez-Cruz consented to have a border patrol agent search the two cellphones in his car. The border patrol agent took the phones behind the vehicle and answered several incoming calls, eventually leading to the arrest of two Mexican citizens without documents. Lopez-Cruz was charged with conspiracy to transport illegal aliens but managed to suppress the evidence heard in the phone calls because the an agent answering calls exceeds the scope of the consent given to search the phone.
Should Cops Be Able to Search Cellphones without Warrant?
There is no way that the judges in the Robinson decision could have predicted the advances in technology that have occurred since 1973. Cellphones provide their owners with easy access to personal information, intimate photos and financial records. The handheld computers can not be compared to the cigarette box filled with heroin referenced in the Robinson case. Arresting someone is not an excuse to violate their Fourth Amendment rights.
If you are facing criminal charges and the evidence against you was illegally seized, contact the California criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich immediately. We have over 40 years of experience successfully defending persons accused of criminal offenses. We have the knowledge necessary to prove the evidence being used against you should not be allowed in court. Call us at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245 today.
What do you think about this controversial issue?
