Reproduced with permission from The Criminal Law Reporter, 95 CrL 541, 07/30/2014. Copyright 姝2014 by The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Courts Defer to Individual Privacy Interests by Requiring Warrant
To Obtain Cell Phone Data and Cell Site Records in Riley and Davis
BYANDREW SERWIN,ANNA FERRARI AND LIBBY
GREISMANN
Two recent opinions have significantly restricted the
practice of warrantless collection of data stored on
cell phones or by cell phone service providers. In
Riley v. California
1
the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed
that a warrant is a precondition for law enforcement to
perform a search of cell phone data in the context of a
criminal arrest. In a separate case considering the war-
rantless collection of cell site location information, the
Eleventh Circuit recently held in United States v. Davis
2
that this practice violates the Fourth Amendment.
Riley v. California
Background. The Supreme Court considered two
companion cases, Riley v. California and United States
v. Wurie, raising the common question of whether the
police may search digital information on a cell phone
seized in connection with the arrest of the phone’s
owner. In the former, a police officer stopped defendant
David Riley for driving with expired registration tags.
The officer discovered Riley’s license had been sus-
pended, which led to an investigatory search of the car
and, ultimately, to Riley’s arrest. Riley’s smartphone,
seized in the search incident to his arrest, was found to
contain photographs of Riley standing in front of a car
that police had previously linked to a shooting. Based
on this evidence, Riley was charged with, and convicted
of, assault and attempted murder. The trial court denied
Riley’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his
cell phone on the basis that it had been obtained with-
out a warrant and was not justified by exigent circum-
stances. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the
trial court’s ruling, relying on California case law that
permitted warrantless searches of cell phone data pro-
vided that the cell phone was on the arrestee’s person
at the time of the arrest.
3
The California Supreme Court
declined Riley’s petition for review.
In Wurie, police officers observed defendant Brima
Wurie making an apparent drug sale. Wurie was ar-
rested, and a ‘‘flip phone’’ was seized from his person.
After it had been seized, the phone received several
calls from a phone number identified as ‘‘my house.’’
The officers used the phone to determine the phone
number associated with ‘‘my house’’ and used a direc-
tory to trace the number to Wurie’s residence. The offi-
cers obtained a warrant to search the residence. Based
on evidence obtained through this search, Wurie was
charged with distributing crack cocaine, possessing
crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He
1
134 S. Ct. 999, 95 CrL 445 (U.S. 2014).
2
95 CrL 382 (11th Cir. 2014).
3
See People v. Diaz, 51 Cal. 4th 84, 88 CrL 392 (Cal. 2011).
COPYRIGHT 姝2014 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. ISSN 0011-1341
Criminal Law Reporter™
