, Legal Times

Justices Endorse Privacy in Cellphone Search Cases


Law enforcement must generally obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a cellphone that belongs to a person under arrest, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Wednesday in a major ruling on digital privacy.

This content has been archived.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Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.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 customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Larry Moniz

    MC, As a crime reporter I worked closely with the MSPCA, law enforcement unit. Even nearly half a century ago, they followed the same rules as regular law enforcement agencies. In fact, they carried commissions as Special Massachusetts State Police Officers. I‘ve also covered activities of animal control officers in other jurisdictions and know of NONE who violate the warrant/search and seizure laws as you imply. If they did, they would be liable to be criminally charged for breaking and entering or criminal entry, depending on the jurisdiction and applicable laws. If you know of specific Animal Control units violating such laws, please, tell us which ones and/or report them to the applicable state attorney general of a U.S. Attorney.

  • Larry Moniz

    MC, it is not the responsibility of the government or U.S. Constitution to make the lives of law enforcement personnel easier, but rather to protect the American citizenry from police state tactics. There were similar cries when the Supreme Court ruled on Miranda and basic right at arrest. Somehow, law enforcement survived, thrived and (most of the time) works within the Miranda Warnings and the right to remain silent, etc.

  • MCovault

    This is a mixed bag, IMO. While it preserves an alleged criminal‘s privacy rights, it could really hinder law enforcement to an extreme and allow true criminals to play the system. Seems bizarre that this ruling could come about, and yet, it‘s okay when LE/AC go into a private home where there is "alleged" animal neglect/abuse, and do pretty much whatever they want, from seizing the animals to all private property (computer, cages, etc.) *under color of law*, and even threaten an owner with incarceration if they try to tape the actions. Do we have some warped perspective here that gives animal enterprises less legal protection than those who commit crimes against humans?

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

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202660769058

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.