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exploring one’s phone contents可定位至原文第四段第三句，对应原文中的exploring one’s smartphone。该句说到，搜查一个人的智能手机更像是私闯民宅。A项中的getting into one’s residence对应原文的entering his or her home，故正确答案为A。

错项排除：由定位句后的内容可知，手机里可能会包含被捕者的历史记录和通讯信息，并非是作者用于比较的内容，故排除B、C两项。D项内容说搜查一个人的手机内容就像搜查他的钱包一样，这种观点是上文加利福尼亚州的观点，并不是作者的观点，故排除D项。

长难句分析：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.

本句主干为They should start…，后面by discarding…suspect’s purse作方式状语，用于说明开始的方式。该状语中that引导了一个同位语从句，修饰argument，用于解释是一个什么样的argument。破折号之间的内容为插入语，作smartphone的同位语，用于对smartphone进行补充说明。

句意为：他们应该从抛弃加州蹩脚的论点开始，即搜查智能手机——一个巨大的数字信息仓库——的内容就像搜查嫌疑犯的钱包一样。