Just how much does the Constitution(宪法) protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consid

Just how much does the Constitution(宪法) protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant (授权令) if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has asked the justices to restore the practice that the police may search through the contents of suspects’ smartphones at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state says, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies .
The justices would be careless if they followed California's advice. They should start by rejecting California’s weak argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone is similar to say, going through a suspect's wallet. The court has ruled that police don't offend against the Fourth Amendment(修正案) when they go through the wallet of an arrestee without a warrant. In fact, 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.
Americans should take steps to protect their own digital privacy and should avoid putting important information in smartphones. 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.
In many cases, it would not be very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still trump(打出王牌) the Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe and dangerous circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not deleted or altered while a warrant is on the way. The justices, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more flexibility.
But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New technology sometimes demands fresh 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 digital necessity of life in the 20th. At that time, the justices had to explain new rules for the new personal domain(领域) of cars. Similarly, the justices must sort out how the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution applies to digital information now.
12. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is _____________.
A. skeptical B. tolerant
C. indifferent D. disapproving
13. The author believes that exploring one's phone content is comparable to_____________.
A. getting into one's residence B. handing one's historical records
C. scanning one's correspondences D. going through one's wallet
14. In paragraph 4 and 5, the author shows his concern that_____________.
A. principles are hard to be clearly expressed
B. citizens' privacy is not effectively protected
C. phones are used to store sensitive information
D. the court is giving police less room for action
15. Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate that_____________.
A. the Constitution should be implemented flexibly
B. Principles of the Constitution should never be changed
C. New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution
D. California's argument violates principles of the Constitution
【答案】