Protecting the Privacies of Digital Life: Riley v. California, the Fourth Amendment's Particularity Requirement, and Search Protocols for Cell Phone Search Warrants
![handle is hein.journals/bclr56 and id is 1993 raw text is:
PROTECTING THE PRIVACIES OF DIGITAL
LIFE: RILEY V. CALIFORNI4, THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT'S PARTICULARITY
REQUIREMENT, AND SEARCH PROTOCOLS
FOR CELL PHONE SEARCH WARRANTS
Abstract: In 2014, in Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
police must obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone. Since then, lower
courts have struggled to determine what scope limitations judges should place on
cell phone warrants in order to ensure that these warrants do not devolve into un-
constitutional general searches. This Note argues that the Fourth Amendment's
particularity requirement mandates that the government submit search protocols,
technical documents that explain the search methods the govermnent will use on
the seized device, for cell phone search warrants. This argument is based on the
Riley decision, as well as a series of decisions from two magistrate judges that
have required search protocols for cell phone search warrants. Detailed search
protocols will ensure that cell phone search warrants have a particularized scope
and thereby protect the privacies of life modem cell phones contain.
INTRODUCTION
As of January 2014, ninety percent ofAmerican adults own a cell phone.'
In 2013, Americans used their cell phones to send 1.9 trillion text messages,
talk for 2.6 trillion minutes, and view 3.2 trillion megabytes worth of data from
the Internet.2 Today, the most popular types of cell phones are smartphones,
handheld computers capable of storing massive amounts of information.3 Most
smartphone users rely on their devices for a wide range of daily activities.4 For
1 Aobile Device Ownership Over Time, PEWRESEARCH CTR., http://www.pewintemet.org/data-
trend/mobile/device-ownership/ [http://perna.cc/SWN4-372D] [hereinafterPEWRESEARCH CTR]; see
also Riley v. California (Riley H1), 134 S. Ct 2473, 2490 (2014) (noting the prevalence of cell phones
in the United States).
2 See CELLULAR TELECOMM. INDUS. ASS'N, WIRELESS INDUSTRY SUMMARY REPORT, YEAR-
END 2013 RESULTS 8 (2014), http://www.ctia.org/docs/default-source/Facts-Stats/ctia survey_ye_
2013_gmphics-final.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [http://penna.cc/SWN4-372D].
See Riley H, 134 S. Ct at 2489 (describing smartphones as minicomputers that also happen to
have the capacity to be used as a telephone); PEW RESEARCH CTR., supra note 1 (stating that 58% of
American adults own a smartphone).
4 See Riley H1, 134 S. Ct at 2484, 2489 (stating that modem cell phones are now such a pervasive
and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an im-
portant feature of human anatomy and observing that these devices could just as easily be called
cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions,
maps, or newspapers); How SmartphonesAre Changing Consumers'DailyRoutinesAround the Globe,
1981](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/bclr56&div=49&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most