Cellphone subject to search under automobile expectation, despite its containing personal information

Seizure and search of the contents of a cellphone, despite its high expectation of privacy, can be proper under the automobile exception. United States v. James, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34864 (E.D. Mo. April 29, 2008):

Judge Noce correctly held that Meador had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data contained in the cell phone. Meador had a possessory interest in the cell phone and it is reasonable for a person to expect the information contained in a cell phone — especially information such as that contained in the address book, which is not available even to the service provider — will be “free from intrusion from both the government and the general public.” United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 259 (5th Cir. 2007). As one court has noted, “cell phones are capable of storing immense amounts of highly personal information.” United States v. Park, 2007 WL 1521573 (N. D. Cal. May 23, 2007). Because of this reasonable expectation of privacy, law enforcement officers must obtain a search warrant before viewing the contents of a cell phone, unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement exist.

Judge Noce also correctly concluded that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as recognized in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970) and refined in California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991) applies here. Because probable cause existed to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the cell phone call records and address book, the automobile exception allows the search of the cell phone just as it allows a search of other closed containers found in vehicles. I agree with Judge Noce’s conclusion, and note that at least one district court has recently reached the same conclusion under very similar facts. See United States v. Fierros-Alvarez, 2008 WL 1826188 (D. Kan. April 23, 2008) (automobile exception justified search of cell phone found in vehicle).