Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

The Case Against Warrantless Cell Phone Snooping by the Cops

Damon Root | 3.31.2014 4:40 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

In April the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases asking whether the police must obtain a warrant before searching the cell phones of people they have under arrest. At The Connecticut Law Tribune, the lawyer who writes under the name Gideon's Trumpet makes the case against giving the cops free rein to snoop:

Think about any random day. You make phone calls, which tells the phone companies where you are and who you're talking to. You send text messages, which stores the content of your conversation. You take pictures, which are stored on your phone. And you download apps that have your bank account and credit card information, maybe even some medical records.

So, if you're arrested—and remember, almost anyone can be arrested; that doesn't mean they're actually guilty of anything—should the police have the authority to simply open your phone and look through every personal email, Twitter update, Facebook status, credit card statement and nude picture? For that matter, should the police have the authority to track your movements without a warrant?

In a recent column on these two cases I posed a similar question: "Should getting arrested for a minor offense like jaywalking be sufficient to allow the police virtually unlimited access to your private affairs in search of additional wrongdoing?" Unhappily, the Obama administration thinks it should. "Although cell phones can contain a great deal of personal information," the administration has argued in a legal filing, "so can many other items that officers have long had authority to search, and the search of a cell phone is no more intrusive than other actions that the police may take once a person has been lawfully arrested."

The problem with that argument is that a cell phone search has the potential to be far more intrusive than any search incident to arrest of your pockets, briefcase, purse, or backpack. That's because, as noted above, cell phones contain not only photos and messages; they also contain GPS tracking data. Thanks to the wonders of technology, our most sensitive and private information—including our whereabouts at various times—is now accessible in the palms of our hands. It's no mystery why law enforcement wants to take a peek. Yet as Gideon's Trumpet observes, "the real reason why police want unfettered access to the phone is precisely the reason why they should not get it."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Russian Military Buildup Questioned, HealthCare.gov Still Malfunctioning, French Leaders Step Down: P.M. Links

Damon Root is a senior editor at Reason and the author of A Glorious Liberty: Frederick Douglass and the Fight for an Antislavery Constitution (Potomac Books).

PolicyCivil LibertiesPoliceFourth AmendmentPrivacySupreme Court
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (14)

Latest

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!