close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Defends Expectation of Privacy In Cell Phone Data

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, limited the ability of law enforcement to search cell phones while making arrests, requiring police to obtain a search warrant before examining the data contained in an arrestee’s device. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). For David Riley and Brima Wurie, the appellants and defendants in two jointly decided cases, the ruling means that the data collected from their respective cell phones and evidence derived from that data should have been suppressed before trial. While much of Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion centers upon Fourth Amendment precedent, it also implicates distinctive privacy related characteristics of cell phone data and cloud computing.

The opinion reflects the Court’s view that individuals have substantial privacy interests in information stored on their cell phones, at least in the context of government searches. This reasonable expectation of privacy stems from the Court’s finding that “modern cell phones, as a category, implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse” because of both the quantity and types of data people store on mobile devices. Slip op. at 17.

The quantitative aspect of the Court’s analysis focuses upon the immense storage capacity of mobile phones. The opinion explains that a cell phone’s distinctive ability to store “millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos” leads to three privacy related consequences: the ability to combine distinct types of information, the capability to convey vast amounts of data, and the potential to reveal data that can date back for years. Slip op. at 18. In fact, the decision indicates that the “cache of sensitive personal information” on a cell phone would often expose “far more than the most exhaustive search of a house.” Slip op. at 19, 20.

Of even greater potential significance for future privacy cases, the Court also found that the qualitative differences in the data stored on cell phones as compared to physical records serve as a basis for device owners’ privacy expectations. Unlike physical records, cell phone data reveals private interests, movements, concerns, and hobbies:

“An Internet search and browsing history, for example, can be found on an Internet-enabled phone and could reveal an individual’s private interests or concerns—perhaps a search for certain symptoms of disease, coupled with frequent visits to WebMD. Data on a cell phone can also reveal where a person has been. Historic location information is a standard feature on many smart phones and can reconstruct someone’s specific movements down to the minute, not only around town but also within a particular building. See United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3) (“GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”). Mobile application software on a cell phone, or “apps,” offer a range of tools for managing detailed information about all aspects of a person’s life.”

Slip op. at 19, 20.

This language, while dicta, suggests that individuals have constitutionally protected privacy interests in each of these categories of information, at least for purposes of a government search of their personal devices. What remains to be seen is whether the Court and lower courts tasked with following Riley will apply this reasoning to government requests for similar data that is stored by third parties, such as phone companies, ISPs and other online service providers. The opinion gives those providers legal ammunition to insist on a warrant before turning over such records. The opinion also leaves open the question of whether businesses that make commercial use of data stored on or generated by users’ mobile devices without their consent face civil tort liability for common law invasion of privacy.

Riley was also the Court’s first foray into the privacy issues of cloud computing. As an additional basis for requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching a cell phone, the Court cited the fact that many forms of data that appear to be stored on a phone are actually stored on a server in the cloud: “[C]ell phone users often may not know whether particular information is stored on the device or in the cloud, and it generally makes little difference.” Slip op. at 21. This suggests that a majority of the Court would find that individuals may have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy to data they store on remote servers, at least in the context of government searches. This dicta gives cloud service providers a strong legal foothold to require law enforcement seeking the contents of subscribers’ online storage accounts to obtain a warrant, even though the Stored Communications Act can be read to require only a subpoena with notice or a court order. The opinion also likely bolsters the cause of privacy advocates and service providers who have been pushing Congress to amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant for all stored online content. Although the impact of Riley beyond cell phone searches by law enforcement remains to be seen, the case is likely to be heavily cited in both civil and criminal privacy cases for years to come.