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.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
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

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.