The Supreme Court unanimously held, in Riley v. California, that police must generally obtain a warrant to search a cell phone seized from an arrestee, rejecting the argument that such searches fall within the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement.  More importantly, the Court’s decision indicates a willingness to treat digital evidence and devices differently from physical evidence because of the greater privacy ramifications raised by searches of them.  The decision thus could affect other issues that have divided lower courts, including whether police need a warrant to obtain communications content or location data held by communications providers, and what protocols police must use when searching digital devices to limit the impact on privacy.  These issues will have a much greater impact on companies than whether police need a warrant to search a phone found on an arrestee.