On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court en-
gaged in what some believe to be an unprece-
dented act of judicial courage and pragmatism,
while others see it as the road to perdition. In
April 2014, the justices heard two cases, Riley
v. California1 and United States v. Wurie,2 in-
volving the extent to which police can search
cellphones obtained incident to lawful arrest.
e cases addressed the reasonableness of cell-
phone searches and whether the increasing
capabilities and proliferation of smartphone
technology will impact the Fourth Amend-
ment. e court issued a single unanimous de-
cision holding that police need a warrant justi-
ed by probable cause to search the cellphones
of people they arrest.3 In so doing, the court
paved the way to revisit the venerated “reason-
able suspicion” standard articulated in the 1985
case New Jersey v. TLO.4 Based on its rationale,
this decision will have a swi and dramatic im-
pact on America’s public schools.
A Bold Decision for the Digital Age
Although the Supreme Court has danced
around the peripheries of the issue for some
time, it could no longer avoid a direct con-
frontation between technology and privacy.
During oral arguments, the court acknowl-
1 Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).
2 United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.
3 Riley, 134 S. Ct. 2473.
4 New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
edged the dangers of craing constitutional
laws based on evolving technology. e court
prefers universally applicable rules. Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy proclaimed that what
the court was seeking was “some standard on
where we draw the line.”5 However, even Jus-
tice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most strict
constructionist on the court, recognized, “It
would be foolish to contend that the degree
of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth
Amendment has been entirely unaected
by the advance of technology.”6 As such, the
court was forced to interpret how omas
Jeerson and John Hancock might feel about
Twitter and Instagram.
Government attorneys argued that
long-standing precedent, including Chimel v.
California,7 allowed ocers to search a per-
son without a warrant “incident to arrest.”8
5 Lyle Denniston, Argument Analysis: Limiting
a Search? Sure, but How?, SCOTUS (Apr.
29, 2014, 2:47 PM), http://www.scotusblog.
com/2014/04/argument-analysis-limiting-a-
search-sure-but-how/.
6 Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33-34 (2001)
(discussing government use of thermal imaging
in the context of Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable government search and seizure).
7 Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969).
8 Transcript of Oral Argument at 33:1-12, Rile y v.
California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (No. 13-132),
available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_
arguments/argument_transcripts/13-132_h315.
pdf.
Gregory J. Rolen, partner,
is a member of the public
entity, employment and la-
bor, transportation law, and
appellate practice groups of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel.
Mr. Rolen has over 25 years
of legal experience serving
as the general counsel of
a large suburban school
district, education law
attorney, deputy attorney
general, and deputy district
attorney. Mr. Rolen is a rec-
ognized statewide expert
in the Brown Act, Public
Records Act, and board
governance.
Prior to joining Haight,
Mr. Rolen was a state
assembly candidate,
substance abuse advisory
board chairman, JPA board
member, DARE speaker,
moot court judge, youth
football coach, and intercol-
legiate athlete.
Colin T. Murphy, associate, is
a member of the professional
liability, risk management and
insurance law, and construc-
tion law practice groups of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel.
His experience includes liti-
gation, case evaluation, legal
research, discovery, preparing
dispositive motions, eective
legal negotiation and settle-
ment, counseling clients, and
trial preparation.
Prior to joining Haight in
2012 as a law clerk, Mr. Mur-
phy held an internship in the
claims department at Amer-
ican Specialty Insurance and
played for the San Francisco
Seagulls semi-professional
baseball team. He presently
volunteers his time helping
student athletes obtain base-
ball scholarships from high
school and junior college to
four-year universities.
SUMMARY
In a seminal decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie
that police need a warrant justied by probable cause to search a cellphone seized incident to lawful
arrest. However, the legal implications of this case go far beyond criminal procedure. is decision
not only challenges the assumptions that underlie the Fourth Amendment “reasonable suspicion”
standard for searches on public school campuses, but also the Fih Amendment issue of forced de-
cryption of cellphone passwords. As technological advances gradually render what was once private
as now public, the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to confront the realities of how technology
impacts our daily lives. e Riley decision likely will change the way school administrators maintain
safety and order on campuses as well as the way we protect our personal privacy.
Cellphone Searches After
Riley v. California
Will This Landmark Decision Transform Hallowed Fourth and
Fifth Amendment Constitutional Law?
By Gregory J. Rolen and Colin T. Murphy
CIVIL LITIGATION & PROCEDURE
A SPECIAL REPRINT
© Entire contents copyright 2015 by Journal of American Law magazine, a publication of The CLM. All rights reserved.
