Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

    California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

    The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

    They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much easier.

    Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

    As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.

    But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

答案精析：根据题干中的The Supreme Court和during an arrest可定位至文章首段第二句。该句提及，最高法院现在将考虑，如果在逮捕嫌犯时，其身上或周围有手机，警察是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容。由此可知，最高法院正在考虑未经授权检查嫌疑人手机内容是否合法这一问题。题目中的work out对应原文定位句中的consider，C项中的check对应原文的search，without being authorized对应原文的without a warrant。故正确答案为C。

错项排除：原文并没有信息表明是否要阻止嫌犯删除手机内容，或禁止嫌犯使用手机，A、D两项在原文中毫无依据，故排除。B项的search和without a warrant有一定的干扰性，是定位句的原词复现，但要注意细节，原文说的是搜查手机内容（search the contents of a mobile phone），并不是搜查手机本身，故B项表述有误，可排除。

长难句分析：The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

本句主干为The Supreme Court will now consider whether…，主谓宾结构，whether引导宾语从句，表谓语consider的对象。在宾语从句中，含有一个if引导的条件状语从句，该状语为主系表结构，主句是the phone is on or around a person，during an arrest作时间状语。

句意为：最高法院现在将考虑，如果在逮捕嫌犯时，其身上或周围有手机，警察是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容。