United States v. Wurie
Issues
Does the Fourth Amendment require the police to obtain a warrant before searching an arrestee’s cellphone call log?
Boston police officers arrested Brima Wurie in 2007 for distributing crack cocaine. Among the items confiscated from Wurie was his cell phone, which rang repeatedly while he was detained. Without obtaining a warrant, officers looked through the phone’s call log, and with that information, determined the address of a residence where they found drugs, a firearm, and ammunition. At his criminal trial, the federal district court denied Wurie’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the police’s warrantless search of his cellular phone. The court found Wurie guilty of possession of narcotics with intent to distribute, distributing cocaine base, and being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The First Circuit reversed the district court’s denial and vacated Wurie’s conviction, holding that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to obtain a warrant before searching an arrestee’s cell phone. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will help shape the contours of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in light of new technologies.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the call log of a cellphone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested.
Facts
On September 5, 2007, Boston police officers spotted an apparent drug deal inside Brima Wurie’s car, a Nissan Altima. See United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1, 1 (1st Cir. 2013). Upon stopping Fred Wade, the man identified with the alleged drug sale, police discovered two bags of crack cocaine in his pocket.
Written by
Edited by
- ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky: Is it time to go high-tech on the Fourth Amendment? (Feb. 4, 2014)
- Bloomberg News, Greg Stohr: Mobile-Phone Searches by Police Get Top U.S. Court Review (Jan. 18, 2014)
- USA TODAY, Richard Wolf: Your cellphone: private or not? (Sep. 9, 2013)