Minnesota police generally cannot search your phone during a routine traffic stop without a warrant, your consent, or specific exceptions under the Fourth Amendment. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Riley v. California requires warrants for cell phone data searches incident to arrest, a standard Minnesota courts follow strictly. Knowing your rights helps protect against unlawful searches that could lead to evidence suppression in court.
Fourth Amendment Protections for Cell Phones
The Fourth Amendment shields against unreasonable searches and seizures, and modern phones hold vast personal data, making them distinct from physical items like wallets. In Riley v. California (2014), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must obtain a warrant before searching digital contents on a phone seized during an arrest, even for officer safety or evidence preservation.
Minnesota applies this federal standard alongside state protections, meaning a traffic stop alone does not justify a phone search without probable cause or an exception. Courts enforce the exclusionary rule here, tossing out evidence from illegal phone searches to deter violations.
Traffic Stops in Minnesota: What Police Can Do
During a traffic stop, officers need reasonable suspicion—like speeding or swerving—to pull you over, and they can request your license, registration, and insurance. They may check for plain view violations or officer safety threats, such as weapons in reach, but a phone search requires more: probable cause of a crime tied to the device.
Minnesota Statute §169.475 bans using phones for texting, calls, or apps while driving (except hands-free), with fines starting at $120 for first offenses, but proving it often needs your admission, eyewitness accounts, or phone evidence. Officers might suspect texting but cannot demand your unlocked phone without consent or a warrant during the stop.
Exceptions Allowing Phone Searches Without a Warrant
While warrants are the rule, Minnesota recognizes limited exceptions where police can access phone data legally. These include voluntary consent, exigent circumstances (like imminent danger to life), or plain view if the phone is unlocked and incriminating content is visible.
- Consent: If you unlock your phone or hand it over, that counts as permission, and evidence becomes admissible—politely decline unless they have a warrant.
- Search Incident to Arrest: Post-arrest, a brief safety frisk is allowed, but full data dives still need warrants per Riley; arrests must be lawful first.
- Emergencies: Immediate threats, like preventing harm or destroying evidence, bypass warrants temporarily.
Minnesota Court Rulings on Unlocking Phones
Minnesota Supreme Court cases clarify enforcement: In State v. Diamond (2018), courts can compel biometric unlocks (fingerprints or facial scans) via warrant without violating the Fifth Amendment, as it’s non-testimonial physical evidence. State v. Gail (2006) upheld warrants for phone records, not triggering Fourth Amendment issues.
If stopped for suspected distracted driving, officers rarely get roadside warrants for petty misdemeanors, but refusal to consent strengthens your position. Always document the encounter and contact a lawyer if searched improperly.
What to Do During a Traffic Stop
Stay calm, provide required documents, and assert your rights clearly: “I do not consent to searches.” Do not physically resist, but verbally decline phone access—officers cannot force unlocks without legal basis.
If arrested or evidence seized, challenge it in court; illegal searches lead to suppressed evidence under Minnesota’s strict rules. Hands-free use (calls, GPS without typing) remains legal to avoid stops altogether.
SOURCES:
- https://kellerlawoffices.com/can-police-search-your-phone-without-a-warrant-in-minnesota/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/DumpsterDiving/comments/1q4os3a/lee_v_greenwood/
