![]() ![]() Lower courts were in dispute on whether the Fourth Amendment allows the police to search the digital contents of such a phone, without first getting a warrant. That is the origin of the notion that police may search a suspect, and the area immediately surrounding the person, without a warrant during a lawful arrest in accordance with the SITA doctrine.īefore the Riley case, the Court had explored variations on the Chimel theme, considering police searches of various items individuals had close at hand when arrested, and the Justices were prepared to look into the seizure of cell phones "incident to arrest". California (1969), the Court ruled that if police arrest someone, they may search the body of the person without a warrant and "the area into which he might reach" in order to protect material evidence or the officers' safety. Other courts in the First Circuit and the Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio disagreed.īackground Prior Supreme Court precedents That rule was followed by the Supreme Courts of Georgia, Massachusetts, and California. ![]() The Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits had ruled that officers can search cell phones incident to arrest under various standards. The case arose from a split among state and federal courts over the cell phone search incident to arrest (SITA) doctrine. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |