California and the United States court
Justice Alito ruled in favor of David Riley and Brima Wurie, who are petitioners against California and the United States court. Justice Alito agreed with the court it was mandatory that law enforcement officers should have a warrant to access an arrestee’s cell phone data in a search incident case. The judge gave two reasons to support his verdict. First, he declined to believe that the only reason search incidents happen is because of the prevention of loss of data or upholding officer safety. He explains that this rule preceded the fourth amendment by far; thus, this amendment should not be used as a scapegoat. Secondly, modern mobile phones carry volumes of confidential data. Therefore pre-digital era rules should not be applied in searching phone data in this digital era, which calls for a balance between law enforcement and privacy interests. He concludes by asking the congress and the legislature to enact appropriate legislation to categorize the different information available today.
The United States and California Courts supported a warrantless search of an arrestee’s items such as mobile phones found within the search incident because they believed that mobile phone data search was important in indirectly ensuring officer safety. The latter happens in the case where arrestee accomplices are near moving to the arrest scene, or the same confederates are almost detonating a bomb.
The United States and California also argued that they permitted a warrantless search of a mobile phone as data on such phones is susceptible to data loss through remote wiping and data encryption. Remote wiping transpires when the phone deliberately receives a data erasing signal from a third party, due to its connection to a remote network. Encryption is a feature that automatically enables data encryption when phone lock feature is activated.
In my opinion, I would support Justice Alito’s verdict on requiring police officers to obtain warrants to allow them to search arrestees’ mobile phones. It is an ultimate privacy diminution when law enforcement officers charge arrestees with crime past or present crime counts obtained from phone data records, as a result of minor offences, like in the case of David Riley where a minor traffic offence led to phone data search which birthed incriminating evidence that was not related to what he was pulled over for.
The case involves two petitioners, Brima Wurie and David Riley, who feel that their privacy rights had been taken away by the courts of United States and California, and therefore they appealed in the court Appeal for a fairer judgment. David Riley was forced to pull over to answer for expired car registration tags, the officer also discovered his suspended license. The officer checked his car and found unlicensed ammunition and a cell phone, whose upon searching data found some initials related to a street gang. He was arrested. The supreme court held that mobile phones could be searched as long as they were found to be in the incident scene.
The second case involves Brima Wurie, who was caught by an officer after consistently watching him sell drugs at a distance, from his car. At the station, police noticed his seized phones repeatedly received calls from a number whose initials were ‘my house.’ The officers checked the number from the phone directory, which led them to his apartment. They conducted a warrantful search of the house and found cocaine, ammunition and other drugs. The first circuit convicted the arrestee by suggesting that mobile phones should be searched in case they are found to be in the search incident scene.
In both cases, mobile phone search was the reason why the law enforcement officers found so much incriminating evidence from the arrestees. During the appeal, the arrestees wanted the court of Appeal to determine the necessity of a warrant in searching phone data, given its capability to store extremely sensitive information.