Riley v. California (2014)
Riley v. California (2014): Police Need a Warrant to Search Your Cell Phone
Your smartphone contains your life — and the Constitution protects it.
Background
David Riley was stopped for a minor traffic violation. Police seized his phone and searched it without a warrant, discovering evidence used to charge him with more serious offenses. The question: does the search-incident-to-arrest exception allow police to explore the vast digital world in a phone?
Questions Presented
- May officers search the contents of a cell phone during a lawful arrest without a warrant?
Majority Opinion — Chief Justice John Roberts
Holding: Officers generally must obtain a warrant to search a digital device.
Roberts recognized that modern phones contain far more than physical objects — they hold private records of thoughts, movements, finances, communications, and medical data. Searching a phone is not like searching a wallet. The privacy interests are profound.
In Texas, this protects people accused of drug crimes, online solicitation, unlawful carrying of a weapon, and nearly every modern charge where phones hold key evidence. If police searched a device without a warrant, Montgomery County defense attorneys file motions to suppress — often crippling the State’s case.
Roberts captured the stakes perfectly: “Get a warrant.”