Digital Evidence In Cell Phones
From reviewing the prominent court cases involving Petitioner David Riley and Petitioner Brima Wurie, a rational legal resolution must be established that portrays what information within a cell phone can be reasonably searched before or following an arrest. Sadly, this issue is widespread and is impacting millions of other Americans each year. There is a vital Forth Amendment right being violated by authority’s day by day and something must be done. Just like there are reasonable restrictions set for what the police may legitimately search during a home search of a physical range, the search for digital information contained on a cell phone must also come with respectful limitations. Orin Kerr, a leading scholar in the field of digital evidence claims there is a virtual needle-in-the-haystack problem due to the immensity of cell phones storage capacities.
In today’s digital world, cell phones contain far more information than just phone numbers which can have several privacy repercussions if ignored. According to Pew Research Center’s recent study, 95% of Americans now own a cell phone. Of that percentage the number of Americans owning smartphones has risen from 35% to 77% since 2011 alone. Therefore, the word cell phone hardly even applies anymore. Smartphones act as almost an entirely different kind of device — their robust hardware capabilities and extensive mobile operating systems, along with overpowering multimedia functionality is the core use of the device over voice calls and text messaging that a differs from a normal cell phone.
Special rules must be established for digital searches on smartphones to prevent future liability problems and privacy concerns. Finding a solid and practical set of rules for this problem will take time to establish. In the meantime, police officers must be reminded to use their best judgement for determining what’s considered reasonable during digital evidence searches and should always consult with their local prosecutors for guidance. Most importantly, the best approach always involves attaining a warrant. Once an officer has verified their physical safety, the officer must get a search warrant before proceeding to dig through digital data on a cell phone.
Searching through a person’s device without abiding protocol is impulsive and self-seeking. This rule must be engrained for law enforcement to avoid conflict with the Fourth Amendment’s rules. The bottom line is searching digital data without a warrant falls in neither category of the expectations to protect officer safety and preserve evidence and is the first step towards solving the problem.
