The unanimous decision is a win for privacy advocates that argued searching mobiles was an unreasonable² intrusion（侵入）.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that mobiles "hold for many Americans the privacies of life".

 

The high court had weighed appeals by two people convicted based on evidence found on their phones.

 

Both were convicted of crimes for which they were not initially³ arrested.

 

Under the fourth amendment⁴ to the US constitution, police and other government officials generally need to obtain a warrant from a judge before they can conduct a search.

 

A warrant requires evidence that a crime has been committed by the suspect.

 

Justice Roberts wrote in his ruling for the court that constitutional protection applied⁵ to the contents of mobiles, as they "differ in both a quantitative⁶ and qualitative⁷ sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee's person".

 

"Modern cell phones are not just another technological⁸ convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life,'' he wrote.

 

"Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant."

 

More than 90% of Americans own at least one mobile, according to the Pew Research Center. More than 12 million people were arrested in the US in 2012, according to FBI statistics.

 

The Supreme Court had previously⁹ ruled that during an arrest, police do not need a warrant to empty a suspect's pockets and examine whatever they find in order to ensure officers' safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.

点击收听单词发音