David Leon Riley Case Study

On August 22nd, 2009, the police pulled David Leon Riley over for driving with expired license registration tags. Due to Riley’s license being suspended, the policy, through their policy, required his car to be impounded. In addition to impounding the car, they are also required to conduct an inventory search to ensure that the vehicle had all of its components at the time of the seizure, to defend against future liability claims. It also serves as a way to search for hidden contraband. During the search of Riley’s car, the police found two guns, arresting Riley for possession of firearms. While he was under arrest, Riley had his person searched. The police located his cell phone in his pocket, and a policeman did a minor search through

Switching vehicles, the shooters got into Riley’s car and drove away. Through evidence on his phone, Riley was subsequently tied to the August 2nd shooting. Separate charges were brought, including shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semi-automatic, and attempted murder. In the lower courts, David Leon Riley made a motion to suppress the evidence regarding his gang affiliation that had been found in the search of his cell phone. The lower court judge denied his motion. In the trial, a gang expert testified, saying that Riley had membership in the Lincoln Park gang, and that the rivalry between the Lincoln Park gang and the other gang was a probable cause of the shooting. At the end of the trial, the jury convicted Riley on all three counts, and he was sentenced to fifteen years to life. Jeffrey L. Fisher, who argued on behalf of petitioner Riley, told the justices that there are, “very, very profound problems with searching a smartphone without a warrant” (Rotenburg and Butler, 2014), and that it was like giving “police officers authority to search through the private papers and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody’s house” (Rotenburg and Butler, 2014). The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, with their unanimous

California was that of United States v. Wurie. Brima Wurie was arrested shortly after finishing a drug deal outside of a convenience store. After the police took Wurie’s cell phone, officers noticed that “My House” had called Wurie’s phone on multiple occasions. Operating without a warrant, one of the officers opened the phone and wrote down the caller’s number. They tracked the number to an apartment, and executed a search warrant, finding a gun, drugs, and cash. Wurie was then charged with possession and distribution of crack cocaine, and felony possession of a firearm, with ammunition. Wurie tried to suppress any information that was found during the cell phone search, but his motion was denied. Wurie’s case was taken into account in the Riley v. California Supreme Court