Post

A 13-year-old's phone was searched at school without a warrant and with a police officer standing right there. Evidence from the search was used to criminally charge the teen. The Fourth Circuit said this was fine. We think the Supreme Court should say otherwise. 🧵

Back in 2014, Riley v. California said police generally need a warrant to search a cellphone—even during an arrest. The Court noted that phones hold your whole digital life, not just what's in your pocket.

Riley wasn't just about arrests. The Court’s rationale means lower courts must re-examine every warrant exception when a cellphone is involved. Old rules made for wallets and glove boxes don't automatically apply to searches of the devices that hold your texts, photos, and location history.

Schools have their own exception: T.L.O. (1985) lets administrators search students and their belongings without a warrant if the search is reasonable and tied to school discipline. This makes sense for backpacks and lockers.

But courts keep applying T.L.O. to cellphones like nothing has changed since 1985—often without even mentioning Riley.

This application of old rules to new technology bypasses the exact procedure Riley demanded: Courts have to actually reassess whether an old exception still makes sense when it’s a cellphone—not a notebook—that’s being searched.

The 4th Circuit’s reasoning was even poorer since police were involved. T.L.O. explicitly only covers searches by "school authorities acting alone." Nearly 60% of schools now have police officers on campus who often search phones alongside administrators.

Kids' privacy interests in their phones are just as real as adults'. When cops help conduct phone searches, the school's administrative-search exception shouldn't cover this activity—Riley's "get a warrant" logic should.