There's been some talk online about an article published that discusses police officers' rights to search your iPhone or other "smart phone" in a search pursuant to arrest. Much ado has been made about this nothing, which is a principle of law that has been set in case law for at least 10 years regarding technology.
The specific article seems to focus on a recent 5th Circuit case, United States v. Finley (477 F.3d 250, 2007 - PDF), in which the defendant was arrested on suspicion of aiding in a drug transaction. During the arrest, the officers obtained a cell phone from Finley, and delivered the phone to other officers who were performing a warrant search on Finley's "conspirator's" property. The DEA agents here reviewed text messages on Finley's phone, and uncovered text messages that appeared to be related to drug transactions ("Call Mark I need 50" and "So u wanna get some frozen agua?"). During questioning (and under Miranda warnings), Finley admitted that these text messages were mostly related to marijuana transactions.
The question on appeal was whether the search of the cell phone's contents was permissible under the "search incident to arrest" doctrine. For those not well-versed in this exception to the Constitutional warrant requirement, the basic gist is that, once you are placed under arrest the police officers conducting the arrest have the right to search your belongings for any evidence of the crime for which you are under arrest. Such a search must be "reasonable" in scope and duration, and includes the opening of closed containers.
The outrage online seems to stem from the idea that your text messages and other information stored on your smart phone are somehow immune to this doctrine. Unfortunately, it's been well-established that electronic "gadgets" such as pagers, cell phones, and other items that may contain incriminating evidence (perhaps even laptops?) are fair game for searches incident to arrest (articulated in United States v. Ortiz, 84 F.3d 977, 1996).
It's important to note that all of these analyses require that the owner of the property be "under arrest", and not merely stopped for questioning. So if you're walking down the street and have done nothing, a police officer can't just stop you, tell you to give him your phone, and start digging through it for incriminating evidence. Closed containers are still generally outside the purview of a Terry stop, unless there's reason to believe they contain weapons or other dangerous materials.
The specific article seems to focus on a recent 5th Circuit case, United States v. Finley (477 F.3d 250, 2007 - PDF), in which the defendant was arrested on suspicion of aiding in a drug transaction. During the arrest, the officers obtained a cell phone from Finley, and delivered the phone to other officers who were performing a warrant search on Finley's "conspirator's" property. The DEA agents here reviewed text messages on Finley's phone, and uncovered text messages that appeared to be related to drug transactions ("Call Mark I need 50" and "So u wanna get some frozen agua?"). During questioning (and under Miranda warnings), Finley admitted that these text messages were mostly related to marijuana transactions.
The question on appeal was whether the search of the cell phone's contents was permissible under the "search incident to arrest" doctrine. For those not well-versed in this exception to the Constitutional warrant requirement, the basic gist is that, once you are placed under arrest the police officers conducting the arrest have the right to search your belongings for any evidence of the crime for which you are under arrest. Such a search must be "reasonable" in scope and duration, and includes the opening of closed containers.
The outrage online seems to stem from the idea that your text messages and other information stored on your smart phone are somehow immune to this doctrine. Unfortunately, it's been well-established that electronic "gadgets" such as pagers, cell phones, and other items that may contain incriminating evidence (perhaps even laptops?) are fair game for searches incident to arrest (articulated in United States v. Ortiz, 84 F.3d 977, 1996).
It's important to note that all of these analyses require that the owner of the property be "under arrest", and not merely stopped for questioning. So if you're walking down the street and have done nothing, a police officer can't just stop you, tell you to give him your phone, and start digging through it for incriminating evidence. Closed containers are still generally outside the purview of a Terry stop, unless there's reason to believe they contain weapons or other dangerous materials.
Leave a comment