WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to seek a compromise over whether police officers need warrants to search cellphones when a suspect is arrested.

In two hours of oral arguments, the justices appeared sympathetic to the need of police officers to quickly search phones but also were wary of privacy concerns raised by the amount of personal data now kept on mobile devices.

The justices varied over how they approached the issue, with some more in favor of warrants than others. The result could be a ruling that says police need a warrant in some circumstances but not in others. It was unclear what rationale the court would embrace. A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Several justices appeared concerned about granting the police unfettered access to the vast amount of information contained on smartphones.

“People carry their entire lives on cellphones,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

By contrast, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that criminals have embraced new technology, which has enabled them to be “more dangerous, more sophisticated, more elusive.”

The nine justices are weighing cases from California and Massachusetts arising from criminal prosecutions that used evidence obtained without a court-issued warrant.

The legal question rests on whether the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches, requires police following an arrest to get court approval before a cellphone can be searched.

State and federal government lawyers have told the court that searching a cellphone is no different than warrantless searches of other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest. The administration of President Barack Obama is backed by 16 states in the case.

In Tuesday’s arguments, the justices considered whether one way of limiting what police can search would be to prohibit access to anything stored in the cloud, an approach the Obama administration suggested in court papers.