Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney says high court requires warrant to search cell Phones

The United States Supreme Court recently held that warrantless searches and seizures of a cell phone during an arrest are unconstitutional. In Riley v. California, the defendant was arrested after a traffic stop. The police found loaded guns in his car and then took his phone and searched through it. The police looked at his messages, contacts, videos, and photographs. Riley was then charged with a shooting that occurred weeks before he was pulled over for the traffic stop.

Courts relied on the ”search incident to arrest” exception to the warrant requirement in the past. However, in Riley v. Calif. , Justice Roberts reasoned that, “Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon–say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.” Justice Roberts rationally explained that the search incident to arrest exception should not apply to a cell phone. Justice Roberts then wrote, “Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life.’ The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.” Minneapolis Defense attorney Max A. Keller of Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys has argued in many cases that police need to get a search warrant in similar cases, either for phones or to test blood, urine, or breath in a DWI arrest or other types of cases.  Now the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with what many Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney’s have been arguing for a long time.

This is a big win in criminal law and an important ruling. If you have been charged with a crime stemming from information obtained from your cell phone, contact an experienced Minneapolis criminal defense attorney. Max A. Keller will fight for your rights and argue any constitutional issues that apply in your case. Call the Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys at Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys NOW for a free consultation.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.