Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
A ruling by the United States Supreme Court will often alter a single element of a rule of law in a manner that effects change throughout the doctrine itself. This is plainly evident in the search-and-seizure case of Riley v. California.1 The Court in Riley affirmed the vitality of the so-called "searchincident-to-arrest" exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.2 However, the Justices severely limited the exception in an emerging context-when the property of the arrestee happens to be a cell phone or device that contains smart technology. The Riley decision categorically makes the warrantless seizure and harvesting of the digital contents of smart devices unlawful absent additional justification by police. Riley accomplishes this with aplomb, placing cell phones on a unique footing as a matter of constitutional law because "[c]ell phones differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee's person" and "ha[ve] several interrelated consequences for privacy."3
A change in Fourth Amendment doctrine in light of Riley is predictable, if not difficult to discern, in accord with the law of unanticipated consequences.4 In education law, Riley sits uncomfortably alongside New Jersey v. T.L.O.5 and its dominant role in resolving assertions of student privacy in the context of campus safety and school discipline. T.L.O. establishes a "search-incident-to-school-discipline" exception to the Fourth Amendment, authorizing searches and seizures of students and their property based upon mere reasonable suspicion.6 Under T.L.O., educators enjoy generous deference from judicial review because "standards of conduct for schools are for school administrators to determine without second-guessing by courts."7 Except in cases both rare and egregious, most student searches are upheld because "maintaining security and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures, and [courts] have respected the value of preserving the informality of the student-teacher relationship."8
This Essay takes up the question posed by the law of unintended consequences: whether and to what extent the rule of Riley affects a student's right to privacy in the contents of a cell phone.9 The interplay of Riley and T.L.O. is inevitable; a study estimates that 77% of teenagers take their phones with them to campus every school day.10 Student possession of these devices...