- Free Consultation: (813) 222-2220 Tap Here to Call Us
Cell Phone Searches History Updated 2025
Cell Phone Searches and Your Rights: Florida Law and Supreme Court Precedents
Introduction: Understanding Cell Phone Searches in Criminal Cases
Cell phones are more than communication devices—they hold a detailed record of our lives. In Florida and across the United States, courts have recognized the sensitivity and depth of this information. At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we stay at the forefront of privacy law developments, especially those concerning cell phone searches in criminal investigations.
🎥 Featured Video: Expert Defense When Police Search Your Phone
Click the video above to watch a breakdown of why to choose an expert to protect your rights during a phone search.
If your phone has been searched, it may have been done unlawfully. This landing page explores the legal landscape of cell phone searches, Florida and federal rulings, constitutional protections, and what defenses may be available to you. To speak directly with Attorney Casey Ebsary, visit our contact page or view his biography to learn more.
🔎 Frequently Asked Questions About Cell Phone Searches
No. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, police generally need a warrant to search a cell phone, even if it was seized during an arrest. Florida courts also support this principle, recognizing that mobile devices carry vast amounts of personal data. A search without a warrant may be subject to a motion to suppress. View Riley on Justia.
The Court ruled that cell phones differ from other objects due to the volume and sensitivity of data stored on them. It held that the search incident to arrest exception does not apply to digital content on cell phones. The opinion emphasized the need for a warrant before conducting a phone search. Read the full opinion on Justia.
Phones may contain photos, messages, location data, voicemails, emails, browsing history, and cloud-stored content. Courts now recognize this content as private and subject to Fourth Amendment protection. Evidence obtained without a proper warrant may be excluded from trial.
No. Florida courts have rejected warrantless cell phone searches under both federal and state constitutions. For example, in Smallwood v. State, the Florida Supreme Court found a search invalid where no warrant was obtained. View Smallwood v. State on Justia.
A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of your rights. Under Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, defense attorneys may challenge warrantless phone searches. This can result in key evidence being thrown out, possibly weakening or dismissing the prosecution’s case. Read Rule 3.190(h).
Generally, police must obtain separate warrants for cloud-stored data. This includes data synced through apps like iCloud or Google Drive. Courts distinguish between data on the device and remotely stored content.
If consent is given freely and knowingly, the search may be valid. However, officers sometimes pressure or trick individuals into consenting. A skilled attorney can challenge the validity of the consent.
Yes, but only if properly obtained. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that accessing historical cell-site location information (CSLI) requires a warrant. Read Carpenter on Justia.
Contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. You may have grounds to suppress the evidence or seek dismissal of charges. Attorney Casey Ebsary can file motions to suppress based on unlawful phone searches. Schedule a consultation.
No. Courts have ruled that inventory searches do not extend to the digital contents of a cell phone. Law enforcement must obtain a warrant even if the phone is part of an impounded vehicle or personal property.
📈 Chart: Warrant Requirements for Cell Phone Data Types
| Data Type | Warrant Required? | Key Court Case |
|---|---|---|
| Text Messages | Yes | Riley v. California (2014) |
| Photos/Videos | Yes | Riley v. California (2014) |
| App Usage Data | Yes | Riley v. California (2014) |
| Cloud-Backed Content | Yes | Carpenter v. United States |
| Location (Historical CSLI) | Yes | Carpenter v. United States |
| Inventory Search of Phone | No | Florida v. Smallwood |
✉️ Call to Action: Protect Your Digital Privacy Now
Have your digital rights been violated by law enforcement? Was your phone searched without a warrant? You may be able to fight the charges and suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. Let W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., a Florida Board-Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, evaluate your case. Contact us now or learn more about Casey here.
🌐 Legal Resources and Statutes
- Riley v. California (2014) – Justia
- Carpenter v. United States (2018) – Justia
- Smallwood v. State (Florida 2013) – Justia
- Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
Meta Description : Florida attorney explains cell phone search laws, warrant rules, and digital privacy rights after Riley v. California and Carpenter.
Learn More About Cell Phone Searches
Cell Phone Tracking(Opens in a new browser tab)
Defense Attorney on Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed(Opens in a new browser tab)
Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest(Opens in a new browser tab)
Search Warrant | Cell Phone Update(Opens in a new browser tab)
Cell Phone Searches – Supreme Court to Rule on Warrant Requirement(Opens in a new browser tab)
Original Post From 2014
Cell Phone Search Warrant
Up until quite recently, there were exceptions to the general requirement that police get a Search Warrant for a cell phone. Cell phones have been a window into suspects’ activities, as police used these exceptions to get their hands on information found inside mobile devices. Obtaining a Search Warrant for a cell phone is not that hard to do. You can review a Search Warrant for a Cell Phone here: Here is an actual iPhone Search Warrant. GPS or Global Positioning Satellite information found in mobile phones has also been used by police.
Up until around 2014, police could and did search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who was arrested. Defense Attorneys would frequently challenge such searches. These searches were frequently based upon “helping” arrested citizens by making sure their property was properly inventoried by the arresting officers for safekeeping by jail personnel or by the evidence unit at the arresting agency’s office. This rationale remains a frequent flier in broad invasive “inventory” searches of automobiles during traffic stops.
Phone Search, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant
Florida had outlawed warrantless phone searches before the US Supreme Court. That ruling is discussed here. Now prohibited will be mobile device and cell phone searches without a warrant. Before the 2014 United States Supreme Court ruling here was another Court’s Ruling on a Phone Search. Searches Incident to a lawful arrest were previously justified by cops using issues of police officer safety and prevention of destruction of evidence.
Now under Florida law, a Motion to Suppress Evidence can be filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Illegal Search and seizure now applies to phones and the Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence including, photographs, video, text messages, directory and location data, voice mails, and emails.
Case Summary: The US Supreme Court’s ruling is that a properly obtained and issued search warrant is generally required before search of a phone. Here is some language from the Court’s ruling.
“Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person. The term “cell phone” is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone. They could just as easily be called cameras,video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.”
“The sum of an individual’s private life can be reconstructed through a thousand photographs labeledwith dates, locations, and descriptions; the same cannot besaid of a photograph or two of loved ones tucked into a wallet.”
“To further complicate the scope of the privacy interests at stake, the data a user views on many modern cell phones may not in fact be stored on the device itself. Treating a cell phone as a container whose contents may be searched incident to an arrest is a bit strained as an initial matter.”
“[T]he search incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones . . . .”
Some Excerpts from Florida Cell Search Cases:
“However, we express great concern in permitting the officer to search appellant’s cell phone here where there was no indication the officer had reason to believe the cell phone contained evidence.”
“We are equally concerned that giving officers unbridled discretion to rummage through at will the entire contents of one’s cell phone, even where there is no basis for believing evidence of the crime of arrest will be found on the phone, creates a serious and recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals.”