MBE Critical Pass Practice Test

The key idea is that digital data stored on a smartphone seized during an arrest is protected and generally cannot be opened and read without a warrant. This protection comes from Riley v. California, where the Supreme Court held that a warrant is normally required to search the contents of a cell phone because the data can be vast and highly private. A routine search incident to arrest, which law enforcement often uses for physical items, does not automatically extend to a phone’s digital information. So, without an exception like exigent circumstances or consent, police may not search the phone’s contents simply because it was seized at the time of arrest. The unlocked status of the phone does not create a blanket permission to search its data, and photographing the contents would effectively reveal private information, which isn’t allowed under this rule. That’s why the best answer is that they may not search the contents without a warrant.