Vermont police generally cannot search your phone during a traffic stop unless they obtain a warrant. This protection is rooted in both federal and state law, which recognize the significant privacy interests associated with digital devices.
Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Riley v. California, police are required to obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. The Court ruled that cell phones contain vast amounts of personal information and are fundamentally different from other physical items, warranting strong Fourth Amendment protections. Routine traffic stops do not typically give police the authority to search your phone without your consent, unless there is a warrant or a recognized exception (such as exigent circumstances, like a threat to life or safety).
In Vermont, both the courts and civil liberties organizations reinforce these protections. The Vermont Supreme Court has agreed with the ACLU that digital searches must be limited and that police should not have unfettered access to electronic devices without judicial oversight. The court has also ruled that even real-time location data from your phone (such as “pinging” to find your location) requires a warrant unless an exception applies.
There have been legislative proposals in Vermont to allow warrantless searches of electronic devices during traffic stops for purposes of enforcing distracted driving laws, but none have become law as of 2024. The Vermont ACLU and other privacy advocates have strongly opposed such measures, arguing that they would undermine constitutional privacy rights. If you are pulled over, you are not required to consent to a search of your phone, and police cannot force you to unlock your device or hand over your password without a warrant.
Vermont police cannot search your phone during a traffic stop unless they have a warrant or there are exigent circumstances. You have the right to refuse consent to a search of your phone, and any evidence obtained without a warrant may be inadmissible in court
Sources
[1] https://www.vermontpublic.org/2014-06-25/high-court-says-police-need-a-warrant-for-most-cellphone-searches
[2] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/riley-v-california
[3] https://epic.org/documents/riley-v-california-2/
[4] https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/vermont-supreme-court-agrees-aclu-electronic-search
[5] https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/20/vermonts-supreme-court-obtaining-real-time-cell-site-location-data-requires-a-warrant/
