Florida Supreme Court rules that warrants are necessary for cell phone search

in Uncategorized by

Just out, a Florida Supreme Court decision that police may not confiscate and search an arrested person’s cell phone without a search warrant.

In question was a 2008 case in which Cedric Smallwood was arrested for the armed robbery of a Florida City bank. When apprehended, police found a cell phone in his pocket and looked in the phone to verify that it was Smallwood’s, and to determine if it contained any evidence related to the crime. They found photos of Smallwood with a gun and large amounts of cash. Smallwood’s attorney filed a motion to suppress these photos from evidence, arguing that it the Fourth Amendment protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that Smallwood’s rights were violated when his phone was searched without warrant.  The motion was denied, and these photos were used as evidence against him in court.  Smallwood was convicted and sentenced to 65 years in prison.

On appeal to the 1st District Court of Appeals in 2011, the Court deliberated that under federal precedent, “containers found upon a person incident to arrest may be searched without additional justification”, but that cell phones have unique qualities much like computers where large quantities of sensitive personal information may be found.  Ultimately, the 1st DCA sided with the trial court, holding that cell phones may be searched upon arrest if it is reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the crime might be found on the phone.

Florida’s Supreme Court was divided Thursday, voting 5-2 to overturn the lower courts’ rulings.  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Fred Lewis asserted that warrants are required before “the information, data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched.”

Justices Charles Canady and Ricky Polston dissented, warning that requiring such warrants has “the potential to work much mischief in Fourth Amendment law.”

Interestingly, bills filed this session by Sen. Jeff Brandes and Rep. Carlos Trujillo would have arrived at the same conclusion as the Court, had they been heard and passed.