.png){kind=small}
In 2014, the Supreme Court extended Fourth Amendment coverage to the contents of cell phones. Prior to that ruling, cops had successfully argued that searching the contents of someone's cell phone was no different than searching the contents of their pockets when arresting them. Claims -- bad ones -- were made about "officer safety" and, for the most part, courts tended to agree. If the pants pocket argument didn't work, cell phones -- with their wealth of personal information and private communications -- were analogized as the digital equivalent of car trunks or address books.
This protection only extends so far, as one parolee has discovered. The key is in the wording of the Supreme Court's Riley decision, which apparently doesn't cover someone being arrested for parole violations. But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF] seems to undercut some of the findings of the Riley decision, which recognized the personal nature of these computers capable of being carried in someone's pocket. In doing so, it appears to say this enhanced expectation of privacy simply doesn't apply to anyone on parole or probation.
Read More:
My Mentor Professor Schuman (Penn State Law) is a nationally recognized expert in and has some very good writing on abuses of the probation and parole system. He's a former public defender. "Revocation of community supervision is a defining feature of American criminal law. Nearly 4.5 million people in the United States are on parole, probation, or supervised release, and 1/3 eventually have their supervision revoked, sending 350,000 to prison each year. Academics, activists, and attorneys warn that “mass supervision” has become a powerful engine of mass incarceration." -Schuman, Jacob, Revocation and Retribution (February 15, 2021). Washington Law Review, Vol. 96, p. 881, 2021, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3786353