Pennsylvania Superior Court Requires Warrant to Search Smart Phones, too

I wrote several weeks ago about the United States Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California. There, the Court required a search warrant issued upon probable cause prior to police conducting a search of a lawfully detained person's smart phone. On July 11, 2014, in Commonwealth v. Stem, Pennsylvania Superior Court followed the Riley case, ruling in the same manner for any Commonwealth prosecution.Mr. Stem filed a motion to suppress pictures found on his cellular phone. The pictures constituted the factual basis for 17 criminal charges of possession of child pornography. Factually, Stem was standing in a private residence when he was arrested and detained for an unrelated reason. Thereafter, police officer searched Mr. Stem's smart phone incident to his arrest, but without a warrant. The officer did not secure permission. The pictures on the cell phone were not immediately apparent without having to conduct a further "search" of the cell phone. Specifically, the picture icon had to been touched and pro actively open by the officer.This course of search conduct, typical of every time an officer touches a person's smart phone, the court determined, constituted a warrantless search of Mr. Stem's smart phone. On review, the Superior Court addressed the issue of whether "a police officer may search the data contained in a modern cellular telephone, referred to as a smart phone due to the computer-like capabilities, without a warrant but to incident to the lawful arrest exception to the warrant requirement under Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution."  Superior Court panel reviewed Riley and its companion case, both of which conclude that "officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting a search of a smart phone".After reviewing Riley line by line, the Superior Court summarily concluded that the Pennsylvania police officer's search of Stem's smart phone without a warrant, although incident to a lawful arrest, was unconstitutional.  In Stem, the Commonwealth forwarded the exact same arguments as those posited by California in Riley, which Superior court found similarly specious.The conclusion of this case for Pennsylvania residents is similar to those in Riley; consent to search will become the focus of any motion to suppress a warrantless search of any smart phone. Please review my website, prior blogs, and articles in the news web page to gain a better understanding of these consent issues and how to avoid them. Please call me to discuss yours or your family member's case regarding these issues.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Email Us For A Response

Ask About Your Options

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Philadelphia Office
1835 Market Street, Suite 2626
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Toll Free: 877-442-7552
Phone: 215-665-0766
Fax: 215-665-1225
Philadelphia Law Office Map

King of Prussia Office
Valley Forge Towers
Suite 107
2000 Valley Forge Circle
King of Prussia, PA 19406

Toll Free: 877-442-7552
Map & Directions

Cherry Hill Office
1101 Route 70 West
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002

Toll Free: 866-427-4552
Phone: 856-354-0050
Fax: 856-454-0440
Map & Directions

Review Us