Under Riley v. California, what is the general rule regarding cell phone searches?

• A. A cell phone search requires a warrant, unless exigent circumstances or officer safety concerns
• B. A cell phone search can be conducted without a warrant if there is probable cause
• C. A cell phone search generally requires a warrant, except for exigent circumstances or officer safety concerns
• D. A cell phone search is allowed if there is consent from any person present

Answer: (C)

Riley v. California establishes that digital data on a cell phone is highly private, so police generally must obtain a warrant before searching its contents. The reasoning is that a smartphone stores vast, sensitive information—messages, photos, location history, apps, and more—that goes far beyond what is needed for a quick arrest-related purpose. Because of that privacy interest, the search of the phone’s contents cannot be justified simply by an arrest.

There are important exceptions to this rule. A warrantless search is permissible if there are exigent circumstances—such as a risk that data could be destroyed or that someone is in imminent danger—or if the person who has authority consents to the search. Absent those exceptions, a warrant is required to examine the digital contents of the phone. This is why the general rule is that a cell phone search requires a warrant, with the listed exceptions.