Initial Reactions to Riley v. California

Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant prior to searching the cell phones of the people they arrest in Riley v. California. In an opinion widely heralded as a resounding victory for privacy in the digital age, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.

Much has already been written about the landmark decision. Here are some initial reactions to Riley from the law and technology community:

• Orin Kerr on the significance of Riley and his six key takeaways from the opinion
• Marcy Wheeler on surveillance and the interplay between Riley and U.S. v. Jones 
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on the impact of the decision for journalists
• Sarah Jeong on the Supreme Court's understanding (or lack thereof) of technology
• Adam Liptak on the Supreme Court, technology, and privacy
• Matt Kaiser on the potential impact of Riley on search warrants to ISPs
• Jay Stanley on how things could have turned out in Riley had the government won
• Julian Sanchez on a Fourth Amendment loophole closed (bonus: Jay Z-inspired lede)
• Josh Stearns on why Riley is a win for press freedom
• Nilay Patel on the Supreme Court's major technology rulings
• Jennifer Granick on the most important takeaway from Riley: digital is different
• Farzaan Ijaz and Amie Stepanovich on a step in the right direction by the Supreme Court
• Marc Rotenberg and Alan Butler on the Fourth Amendment in the digital age
• Kyle Graham on how Riley won't change much in the field
• Paul Bernal on what courts in the European Union can learn from Riley
• Stephen Schulhofer on how Riley may impact warrantless surveillance and the third party doctrine
• The Onion on how ordinary Americans are reacting to Riley

Twitter also weighed in on the case. Below are some thoughts on Riley in 140 characters or less: 

After today's Sup Ct. ruling: Getting the list of #s you've called from your phone, warrant. Getting them from your phone company, subpoena.
— Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) June 25, 2014

Did SCOTUS just implicitly validate the "mosaic" theory? pic.twitter.com/SkV21d9uQp
— Hanni Fakhoury (@HanniFakhoury) June 25, 2014

"Get a warrant." Noted hippies, @EFF, @ACLU, and the Chief Justice
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) June 25, 2014

Serious question: does the @EFF cell phone sticker saying "I do not consent to the search of this device" now carry a bit of legal weight?
— Trevor Timm (@trevortimm) June 25, 2014

Kudos to @OrinKerr for getting cited not once but twice in Riley, the new SCOTUS cell phone search case!
— jennifer granick (@granick) June 25, 2014

Riley ruling is really, REALLY important in light of Atwater v. Lago Vista. https://t.co/fAojepiZSP
— Julian Sanchez (@normative) June 25, 2014

Given what Riley says about the cloud, a cautious DHS border agent would stop searching the social media accounts of seized cell phones asap
— Catherine Crump (@CatherineNCrump) June 25, 2014

I will continue to update this post with additional writings as they are published. If I have missed any, please comment here or reach out to me on Twitter @natnicol.

This post was updated on June 26, 2014 at 1:59 p.m. MDT, and again at 2:21 p.m. MDT.
This post was updated on June 27, 2014 at 1:15 p.m. MDT.

Read More