In North Dakota during a traffic stop, police generally cannot search a phone without a warrant or explicit consent from the driver or occupant. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014) specifically requires police to obtain a warrant before searching digital contents on a cell phone after an arrest, except under very limited exigent circumstances.
For a typical traffic stop without an arrest, police must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion that evidence of a crime will be found on the phone to justify a search without a warrant. The North Dakota Supreme Court has clarified that officers need more than just observing a driver using a phone to initiate a stop or justify a search. The officer must witness a prohibited use, such as sending a message or accessing illegal content, and articulate why the phone search is justified. Mere tapping or casual use of a phone after a stop does not meet the threshold for a lawful search.
If the driver consents voluntarily and knowingly to a search of the phone, police may proceed without a warrant. However, refusal to consent means police must obtain a warrant before searching. Additionally, routine searches of phones during traffic stops without arrest or specific suspicion are unconstitutional. Thus, in North Dakota, police searches of phones during traffic stops are tightly regulated to protect privacy rights, and a warrant is generally required unless consent is given or clear exigent circumstances exist.
Sources
(https://law.und.edu/_files/docs/ndlr/pdf/issues/95/1/95ndlr193.pdf)
(https://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=scholar)
(https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=ndlr)
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/category/keywords/search_and_seizure)
(https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/can-police-search-your-phone-during-a-traffic-stop)
