Whether it is the result of a post-Snowden backlash or federal courts are simply getting more comfortable with analyzing increasingly complex legal issues involving digital data, the past few months have shown a ramping up of judicial interest in denying unlimited government access to electronically stored data. Even the U.S. Supreme Court, which historically seemed to avoid issuing decisions when computers or electronic communications have been involved, appears more willing to step into the fray ever since it ruled in City of Ontario v. Quon,1 its first foray into this area.
In its latest decision, Riley v. California,2 the Supreme Court ruled last month that law enforcement may not utilize the warrant exception of search incident to a lawful arrest to justify a warrantless search of the contents of a cell phone. What makes Riley particularly interesting is that its holding flies in the face of lengthy historical precedent merely because the item being seized from the arrested individual is a miniature computer.
Facts in ‘Riley’
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
