High court: Police need warrant to search cell phones

by Matt Dixon

In a case stemming from a Jacksonville burglary, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 5-2 Thursday that police must get a search warrant before searching someone’s cell phone.

More than a year after Cedric Smallwood was arrested for the 2008 burglary of a Jacksonville gas station, the arresting officer told prosecutors that he had searched Smallwood’s phone and saw photos tying him to the crime.

The trial court said the cell phone search was legal and convicted him of robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced him to fifty years, which was upheld by the 1st District Court of Appeals.

The court rejected the ruling because, unlike other objects that can be on someone when being arrested, newer cellphones can continue a wide-range of personal data and should have greater protection.

“At this time, we cannot ignore that a significant portion of our population relies upon cell phones for email communications, text message information, scheduling, and banking,” read the majority opinion, authored by Justice Fred Lewis.

Justices Barbara Pariente, Peggy Quince, and Jorge Labarga, James E.C Perry. Justice Charles Canady and Chief Justice Ricky Polston dissented.

Lower courts relied on a case styled United States v. Robinson. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was legal for officers to search a crumpled up cigarette packet that contained heroin.

“The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly found that anything found on an arrestee or within an arrestee’s immediate control may be searched and inspected upon arrest,” read the district court’s opinion.

The court’s majority disagreed because new cellphones contain large amounts of private information.

“In our view, attempting to correlate a crumpled package of cigarettes to the cell phones of today is like comparing a one-cell organism to a human being,” read the opinion.

The dissenting opinion, penned by Canady, said the majority mischaracterized the argument and failed to consider the invasive nature of any search.

“It is unquestionable that individuals frequently possess on their persons items with “highly personalized and private information” other than cell phones or similar electronic devices,” he wrote.