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, particularlyone 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 the 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.

1.The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to_______.

A prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents

B search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant

C check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized

D prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones

解析：选C。C 细节理解题。题干意为：最高法院将确定，在逮捕过程中，_______是否合法。 根据第一段第二句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. 最高法院将即刻讨论，在没有搜查令的情况下，警方在逮捕过程中是否可以搜查嫌疑人身上或身旁手机的内容。without a warrant即相当于without being authorized（没有被授权）。此题易误选B项：search for意为“寻找”，search意为“搜查”。故选C。

2.The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of_______.

A disapproval

B indifference

C tolerance

D cautiousness

解析：选A。A 观点态度题。题干意为：作者对加州的论点的态度是_______。根据第三段第一句The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice.（如果法院听从加州的建议，那么它将是鲁莽的谦虚）、第四段第一句They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone（他们应该从抛弃加州关于探索智能手机内容的蹩脚论点开始）、最后一段第一句But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole.（但是法官们不应该全盘接受加州的论点）可得知，作者对加州的论点持不赞成的态度。disapproval不赞成，indifference 冷漠，tolerance忍受，cautiousness谨慎。故选A。

3.The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to_______.

A going through one’s wallet

B handling one’s historical records

C scanning one’s correspondences

D getting into one’s residence

解析：选D。D 细节理解题。 题干意为：作者认为，探索一个人的手机内容相当于_______。根据第四段的第三句But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home.（但搜查嫌疑人的智能手机更像是进入他/她的家）,即D选项。residence表示“住处，住宅”,与home同义。本题易误选A项：第四段第一句中，作者认为“搜查嫌疑人的智能手机就像搜查他/她的钱包一样”这一论点是蹩脚的(lame)，即作者不同意这个观点。故选D。

4.In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that _______.

A principles are hard to be clearly expressed

B the court is giving police less room for action

C phones are used to store sensitive information

D citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected

解析：选D。D 推理判断题。题干意为：在第5段和第6段中，作者对_______表示了担忧。第五段最后一句作者表示公民仍然有权要求私人文件保持私密性，并受到宪法禁止不合理搜查的保护（Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches）；第六段中作者谈到在很多情况下，对于当局来说，获得搜查电话内容的搜查令并不会太麻烦，他们还可能在紧急情况下越过第四修正案，并且还可以采取合理措施，确保在等待搜查令期间，手机数据不会被删除或更改（In many cases...while waiting for a warrant），由此可知，作者对于公民的隐私保护问题表示担忧。故选D。

5.Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that_______.

A the Constitution should be implemented flexibly

B principles of the Constitution should never be altered

C California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution

D new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution

解析：选D。D 推理判断题。题干意为：作者引用奥林·科尔的对比是想表明_______。答案出处定位到最后一段第三句。奥林·科尔把21世纪数字信息的爆炸式增长和可获取性与20世纪汽车成为生活必需品的确立相比较：当时，法官们不得不为小汽车这新兴私人领域制定新的规则；他们现在也必须确认第四修正案如何适用于数字信息时代。亦即，新技术的出现需要重新诠释宪法。故选D。