TEXT 2

　　Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

　　California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumptions that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

　　The court would be recklessly modest if it followed Californias advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justice can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

　　They should start by discarding Californias lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone- a vast storehouse of digital information is similar to say, going through a suspects purse .The court has ruled that police dont violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook, of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring ones smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestees reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of cloud computing. meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.

　　But the justices should not swallow Californias argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitutions protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a digital necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

　　26. The Supreme court, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to

　　[A] search for suspects mobile phones without a warrant.

　　[B] check suspects phone contents without being authorized.

　　[C] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.

　　[D] prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

　　27. The authors attitude toward Californias argument is one of

　　[A] tolerance.

　　[B] indifference.

　　[C] disapproval.

　　[D] cautiousness.

　　28. The author believes that exploring ones phone content is comble to

　　[A] getting into ones residence.

　　[B] handing ones historical records.

　　[C] scanning ones correspondences.

　　[D] going through ones wallet.

　　29. In graph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that

　　[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.

　　[B] the court is giving police less room for action.

　　[C] phones are used to store sensitive information.

　　[D] citizens privacy is not effective protected.

　　30.Orin Kerrs comparison is quoted to indicate that

　　(A)the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

　　(B)New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.

　　(C)Californias argument violates principles of the Constitution.

　　(D)Principles of the Constitution should never be altered.

　　26. Bcheck suspects phone contents without being authorized.

　　27.Cdisapproval

　　28.A getting into ones residence

　　29. D citizens privacy is not effectively protected

　　30.B new technology requires reinterpretation of the constitution