A unanimous Supreme Court ruling that was passed down last week now requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before combing through an individual's personal device, but local agencies say the ruling only enforces what they're already in the habit of doing.
The Fourth Amendment has been the main force protecting a person's right to privacy since its adoption in 1792. But with the arrival of the digital age and a shift from physical items to digital fare, some of those rights have come into question. Until last week, that is, when the United States Supreme Court voted 9-0 in the case of Riley v. California dealing with cellphone searches. Law enforcement agencies now need a warrant to search a person's device.
Although the historic decision now protects the contents of a person's phone from a warrantless search, just like the contents of their car, home or office, it won't have much of an impact on local law enforcement agencies practices.
Blytheville Police Chief Ross Thompson said it has long been the department's practice to obtain a search warrant before diving into the contents of a person's cellphone or other personal device.
"We've always done search warrants on the phones," Thompson said. "If we ever have a phone that we've gotten that we're seriously looking at using for a case, we may seize the phone during the arrest -- which would be lawful because it was collected as personal property. But whatever we're investigating, it we believe this phone may contain something, then we're going to submit for a search warrant."
According to Thompson, BPD goes beyond what is necessary to protect a person's privacy as well as the department's integrity. The chief said even if the department has a warrant to seize any and all materials possibly connected with a case and a phone is taken, the department obtains a separate warrant before actually going through the contents of the phone.
In addition to the warrant, Thompson said when the department does initiate a search on a phone, they often enlist the help of other agencies such as Jonesboro Police Department, the Arkansas State Police Department or even, at times, the Secret Service.
Thompson did want to clarify the difference between a warrantless search and inventorying an arrestee's personal property, which could include anything from a wallet or a checkbook to jewelry and sunglasses or cigarettes and a lighter.
"Say we arrest someone for shoplifting and she has a purse. You bring her and her property up here and you're going through and you're booking her in and doing all the paperwork," Thompson said. "Well, you're going to go through and inventory that purse because you don't want any contraband, weapons or anything like this that could be in there with her. Also, though, you want to inventory any kind of valuables she may have and make sure it's all returned."
Mississippi County Sheriff Dale Cook and Mississippi County CID Commander Robb Rounsavall echoed Thompson's remarks about the judgment not directly affecting the way local agencies conduct searches on personal devices.
"It's not going to have any impact on us at all because we've been doing it all along anyway on cellphone searches," Cook said.
Although the court's decision is being dubbed "historic" by many news sources, mostly for its impact on digital privacy, Thompson said he feels it was a no-brainer. Thompson did add he's glad the Supreme Court now has legal backing for the department's long-standing practice.
"What's in someone's phone is their property, and you need a warrant for that. People are making a big deal out of this decision, and it is good, but it just seems like a no-brainer to me," said Thompson.
cpinkard@blythevillecourier.com