Throughout its history, the U.S. Supreme Court has faced the difficult task of reconciling traditional notions of privacy with evolving species of technology. The latest fault line was confronted at oral argument Tuesday. [See Legal affiliate The National Law Journal's coverage of the arguments on page 4.] On that day, the court considered two cases addressing what level of privacy one can expect in data stored on a cellphone.
Both cases—Riley v. California, No. 13-132, and United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212 —concern warrantless searches of cellphones incident to a lawful arrest. The key difference between the two cases is the amount and nature of data stored on the two seized phones in question. The “flip phone” technology in Wurie can only hold a limited amount of information, but Riley involves a smartphone capable of accessing the Internet and holding a wealth of personal information.
Riley v. California
This content has been archived.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]
