In Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to mobile phones. Earlier this month, in United States vs. Camou, the Ninth Circuit extended the logic of Riley to hold that two other exceptions to the warrant requirement – one for exigent circumstances, and one for searches of vehicles – also do not apply to mobile phones. This is just the latest example of the broadening ripple effects of Riley in the area of digital privacy. By the time the last ripple reaches shore, the name “Roberts” might be heralded along with “Brandeis” and “Blackmun” as among the paragons of privacy jurisprudence. And that will be an ironic legacy for the same Administration that gave us the Patriot Act, the 215 program, and PRISM.