Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

SCOTUS Finds Searches of Cell Phones Require Warrant

Written by: on June 26, 2014 | Category: Blog | Tags:

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in the cases of Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, found that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone pursuant to an arrest seizure.  Generally, when someone is stopped for a traffic violation, the police may conduct a warrantless search of the individual subject during the arrest.  This search extends to the contents of the arrestee’s pockets, and even to the interior contents of cigarette packages as such may contain items of potential harm to the police.  However, the Supreme Court has found that while the police may search the arrestee for a cell phone and confiscate the same, the police may not search the data on the cell phone.  In today’s technological age, such data often includes photographs, videos, text messages, e-mails, and phone directories.  In reaching this decision, the Court found it necessary to balance the degree of intrusion into individual privacy with the need for promotion of legitimate government interests.  As the data on cell phones can be protected until a warrant is secured, personal privacy won.

Attorney Kimberly Krupka is a member of the firm’s Litigation Group and regularly practices before Pennsylvania State and Federal courts.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog