Can the police look through your phone if you are stopped for potential DUI?

[Swiftness]

I know that as of 6/25/2014 the Supreme Court passed a law stating that the police cannot search your phone without a warrant. Last week I was stopped, because I did a roll in stop. I did have one drink at a get together with friends before the incident happened and the police doubted that I was sober, but I was completely fine. The officer searched my vehicle while I had my hands against the police car. The officer then came out and said that I was a 'party boy' based off what he saw on my phone. I did have pictures of me going out with a couple of friends which doesn't happen often. The police then said that he will let me go home if I tell him something that will get someone else arrested instead of me. I told him that I don't know what he wants from me. He told me to tell him if someone was doing drugs at the party I was at. I told him that my friends don't do that type of stuff. I'm 25 years old and all I did was have a drink with a few friends at his house. I was really mad that he looked through my phone. I was wondering if I can do something about this when this new law took affect four days after? The officer ended up letting me go. It was obvious that I was fine.

 

[Nellibelle]

I know that as of 6/25/2014 the Supreme Court passed a law stating that the police cannot search your phone without a warrant. Last week I was stopped, because I did a roll in stop. I did have one drink at a get together with friends before the incident happened and the police doubted that I was sober, but I was completely fine. The officer searched my vehicle while I had my hands against the police car. The officer then came out and said that I was a 'party boy' based off what he saw on my phone. I did have pictures of me going out with a couple of friends which doesn't happen often. The police then said that he will let me go home if I tell him something that will get someone else arrested instead of me. I told him that I don't know what he wants from me. He told me to tell him if someone was doing drugs at the party I was at. I told him that my friends don't do that type of stuff. I'm 25 years old and all I did was have a drink with a few friends at his house. I was really mad that he looked through my phone. I was wondering if I can do something about this when this new law took affect four days after? The officer ended up letting me go. It was obvious that I was fine.

You have no recourse as a result of the officer looking at your phone 4 days before the Supreme Court rules that an officer needs a warrant to look at the contents on a cell phone.

 

[CdwJava]

I know that as of 6/25/2014 the Supreme Court passed a law stating that the police cannot search your phone without a warrant.

The USSC did not "pass" a law, they made a decision upon the interpretation of the law.

Unless you are being charged with a crime based on what was on your phone, this is a non issue. If you are, then your attorney can look into a suppression motion based upon whatever he feels is appropriate. But, since no charges came about from the search of the cell phone, it seems that it is a non-issue.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

That said, some police departments have technology to scan and store the contents of your phone without opening it up and reading it.

 

[quincy]

Here are links to the Supreme Court decisions and related material:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-california/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-wurie/

And here is a link that explains the Opinion "in plain English:" http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/get-a-warrant-todays-cellphone-privacy-decision-in-plain-english

If the police officer looked at what you had on your cell phone, he invaded your privacy, but I agree with CdwJava that it is probably of little consequence to you if you were not arrested. That said, I think it could be worth a complaint to the police officer's department.

 

[CdwJava]

That said, some police departments have technology to scan and store the contents of your phone without opening it up and reading it.

As of today, I doubt they would want to do that absent a warrant.

 

[Ohiogal]

You have no recourse as a result of the officer looking at your phone 4 days before the Supreme Court rules that an officer needs a warrant to look at the contents on a cell phone.

Wrong. You need to quit posting.

 

[quincy]

You need to quit posting I'm wrong unless you can back it up! In view of your posting history, your post here isn't credible!

You said that Swiftness has "no recourse," and that is wrong.

His privacy was invaded when the police officer searched his phone. This would have been the case prior to the Supreme Court's decision and it is even clearer now that the Supreme Court has issued their Opinion. Why do you think the Supreme Court was asked to hear both United States v Wurie and Riley v California in the first place?

That said, it is probably not worth the effort and expense for Swiftness to pursue the matter, other than possibly reporting the officer to his police department for the violation of Swiftness' privacy rights.

Ohiogal is a practicing attorney and she is a valuable member of this forum. Find somewhere else to play.

 

[Nellibelle]

You said that Swiftness has "no recourse," and that is wrong.

His privacy was invaded when the police officer searched his phone. This would have been the case prior to the Supreme Court's decision and it is even clearer now that the Supreme Court has issued their Opinion. Why do you think the Supreme Court was asked to hear both United States v Wurie and Riley v California in the first place?

That said, it is probably not worth the effort and expense for Swiftness to pursue the matter, other than possibly reporting the officer to his police department for the violation of Swiftness' privacy rights.

Ohiogal is a practicing attorney and she is a valuable member of this forum. Find somewhere else to play.

If the only recourse Swiftness has is to institute litigation against the officer for invasion of privacy that we all believe would not be worth the effort and expense to pursue, then it really equates to no recourse at all!

 

[quincy]

If the only recourse Swiftness has is to institute litigation against the officer for invasion of privacy that we all believe would not be worth the effort and expense to pursue, then it really equates to no recourse at all!

No. This is wrong, too. Boy, you are on a roll here, aren't you, Nellibelle?

Swiftness has legal recourse - his privacy was invaded - and he can also report the police officer's actions to the police officer's department.

Having legal recourse does not "equate to no recourse at all," except perhaps in your mind.