Abstract
This Note applies Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), and other cases to fitness trackers and argues that a blanket rule, which would require police to obtain a warrant prior to searching any digital device found on an arrestee at the time of arrest, is not in line with the Court’s search and seizure precedent. Instead, as in Riley, the appropriate rule is a narrowly tailored rule, easy to apply in the field, which allows a workable balance between government interest and interest of the people.
Part II of this note explores the variety and functionality of fitness trackers as well as the prevalence of such devices among citizens. Part III summarizes the Fourth Amendment, the exception to the general warrant requirement when police search an arrestee, and the holding in Riley as it pertains to the search of digital devices found on an arrestee upon a lawful arrest. Part III also surveys cases in which lower courts have applied Riley to other digital devices. Finally, Part IV provides the proposed rule based on the categories of devices, one rooted in both legitimate government interests and protections of citizens’ privacy, and gives examples of how that rule would work in practice to further the policies that are the basis for the Riley rule.
Recommended Citation
William Kendall,
“Outrunning” the Fourth Amendment: A Functional Approach to Searches of Wearable Fitness Tracking Devices,
43
S. Ill. U. L.J.
333
(2019).
Available at:
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/siulj/vol43/iss2/3