First Circuit Defers to Justices on Cellphone Searches

, The National Law Journal


Hoping the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the matter, a federal appeals court in Massachusetts said it would not revisit a ruling that forces police to obtain a warrant to search data on the cellphone of a person who's under arrest.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Avon

    This article does a good job of stating the rationale(s) for the minority panel opinion and the prosecution position, and impressions that other courts disagree with the First Circuit.
    But it fails to mention the rationale(s) for the panel decision or the defendant-appellant's position, or any court that agrees with the First Circuit.
    That makes the situation basically incomprehensible. The reporting being absent, I guess each reader must research the information for herself, which wasn't on my agenda for today!

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202612956694

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.