阅读理解 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 California's 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 California's lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to, say, going through a suspect's purse. The court has ruled that police don't violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's 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.
Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.
But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's 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 virtual 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.

单选题 The Supreme court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to ______

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】细节题。根据题干关键词the Supreme Court和whether定位到第一段。由该段第二句The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant...可知B项“在没有授权的情况下检查嫌疑犯的手机内容”是该句的同义转换，故选B项。A项“在没有搜查令的情况下搜查嫌疑人的手机”不够准确，原文是search the contents of a mobile phone，重点在于手机中的内容。C项“阻止嫌疑人删除手机内容”和D项“禁止嫌疑人使用手机”均属于过度推断。

单选题 The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of ______

单选题 The author believes that exploring one's phone contents is comparable to ______

单选题 In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that ______

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】推断题。根据题干关键词Paragraph 5 and 6定位到第五段和第六段。第五段认为应采取措施保护数据隐私，第六段继续陈述原则的不恰当之处，说明作者认为现在公民的隐私没有得到有效保护，故D项符合题意。A项“原则很难清晰表达”和C项“手机被用来存储敏感信息”不是作者想要表达的核心观点。B项“法庭给予警察的行动空间更少了”与原文相反，原文是allow room for police，即给予警察空间。

单选题 Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate that ______

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】推断题。根据题干关键词Orin Kerr's comparison定位到最后一段。根据该段第二句New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections可知，作者认为宪法应适应新技术的发展，接下来引用了奥林·克尔的话，也是为了证明这一点，故选B项“新技术要求宪法的重新解释”。A项“宪法应该被灵活地实施”没有提到新技术的影响，过于片面。C项“加利福尼亚州的提议违反了宪法原则”原文没有提到。D项“宪法原则绝不应被改变”与文意相反。