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

Hide Comments (14)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   11 years ago

    …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.

    We’re already pounding you in the ass, so what’s another inch?

    1. LiveFreeOrDiet   11 years ago

      But it’s already up in so far I can feel it gagging at my uvula.

  2. Dweebston   11 years ago

    Just to be clear, if your phone is passworded can police compel you to fork over the password? Or (since I’m sure the usual password protection on phones is pretty flimsy) are they free to get around it altogether? I’m guessing they’re allowed to unlock compartments or bags their arrestees have inconveniently locked them out of.

    1. LiveFreeOrDiet   11 years ago

      I love From The Tundra’s self-destruct password app idea, below.

  3. BuSab Agent   11 years ago

    Every bit of personal records of mine I keep in a huge locked filing cabinet, my daughter keeps hers on her cell phone. I have never once gone any where carrying my filing cabinet. Sure the police could search my filing cabinet, but they’d need a damn warrant. And cell phone searches absolutely should require a warrant as well.

  4. PapayaSF   11 years ago

    The intrusiveness is only part of the issue. Reasons for searching a person are clear and justifiable: does this person have a weapon or other contraband that would make putting them in the back of a patrol car or in a jail cell problematic? But what could be on a cell phone that’s equivalent? Maybe the phone itself could be temporarily confiscated, but the contents of the phone pose no threat that justifies a warrantless search.

    1. LiveFreeOrDiet   11 years ago

      Just so.

  5. Libertarian   11 years ago

    “no more intrusive than other actions”

    Really?????

    They’re just blatantly lying to us now. Not even an attempt at subterfuge. As others, much more knowledgeable than me, have stated here before: we are doooooooooooomed.

  6. Byte Me   11 years ago

    The Case Against Warrantless Cell Phone Snooping by the Cops

    I believe this already exists:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  7. RishJoMo   11 years ago

    Wow man those guys seem to know whats tup./

    http://www.GotzAnon.tk

  8. LiveFreeOrDiet   11 years ago

    PLEASE write one that overwrites everything with I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search! I do not consent to any search!

  9. FreeToFear   11 years ago

    Android can do this on failed password attempts already. You might get nailed on your wilful destruction of evidence, though

  10. Libertarian   11 years ago

    I guess that would be all right. But I think “fuck the pigs” would be even groovier…………..you know, in a 1960s sort of way.

  11. LiveFreeOrDiet   11 years ago

    Or something snarky like If this went so badly, guess what you’ll catch when you swipe for DNA… If this went so badly, guess what you’ll catch when you swipe for DNA… If this went so badly, guess what you’ll catch when you swipe for DNA… If this went so badly, guess what you’ll catch when you swipe for DNA… If this went so badly, guess what you’ll catch when you swipe for DNA…

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Tariffs Are Breaking the Manufacturing Industries Trump Says He Wants To Protect

Eric Boehm | From the July 2025 issue

The Latest Escalation Between Russia and Ukraine Isn't Changing the Course of the War

Matthew Petti | 6.6.2025 4:28 PM

Marsha Blackburn Wants Secret Police

C.J. Ciaramella | 6.6.2025 3:55 PM

This Small Business Is in Limbo As Owner Sues To Stop Trump's Tariffs

Eric Boehm | 6.6.2025 3:30 PM

A Runner Was Prosecuted for Unapproved Trail Use After the Referring Agency Called It 'Overcriminalization'

Jacob Sullum | 6.6.2025 2:50 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!