In August 2009, David Riley was pulled over for having expired tags on his car and driving with an expired driver’s license. In accordance to the San Diego Police Department Policy, the officer was obligated to impound Riley’s car and conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle. The officer confiscated two handguns which had later been linked to a gang related shooting that had taken place a few weeks prior and Riley’s cell phone. Police officers then rummaged through the data contained on the cell phone which linked Riley to gang affiliated activities and was later used as admissible evidence in court. Riley was convicted on three charges for his involvement in the gang related shooting and the California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction, however he argued that the officers were prohibited to search his cell phone without a warrant and that it was an intrusion of his privacy. Riley claimed his rights were violated under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. …show more content…
According to The American Library Association, cell phones have now evolved into sophisticated personal computers and withhold the inner most private thoughts. Information and data such as books currently read, which websites that had been visited, and personal conversations between family and friends. The Association also argues that constitutional protections will have been surrendered if police offers are allowed to conduct a warrantless search of a cell phone, because more than half of Americans in the country own a smartphone. The Petitioner debates that a cellphone should be viewed as a window to person’s mind and that due to the advancement of electronics should not be confiscated and rummaged through without a