ipl-logo

David Riley Case

713 Words3 Pages

A man named David Riley was arrested after a traffic stop in California. The police later searched Riley’s car and found several guns in the vehicle. The police then took his phone and with the information they found, were able to convict him of an unrelated shooting several weeks prior to the traffic stop. However, the police did not receive a warrant before looking through Riley’s phone. Some say that because the police were not granted a warrant they had violated the Fourth Amendment right that protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. If the police did violate the Riley’s Fourth Amendment right, he should have never been charged with the arrest related with the shooting. Although many people agree that law enforcers should …show more content…

For example, when Connie Debate was killed her husband had said that a masked intruder broke in and attacked her. But, when the police had checked the fitbit Connie was wearing, they had learned that she had walked 1,217 feet in the hour her husband said she was killed. Knowing the information they had just discovered, the police were able to figure out that it was actually Connie’s husband, Richard Debate, that had killed her. Another case in which using an electronic device has helped the police involved a man named Timothy Carpenter. When the FBI mapped Carpenter’s locations for the previous four months, they had found that he had used his phone within a kilometer or so if several crime scenes at the times of the crimes. Prosecutors were able to convict and sentence Carpenter to more than 116 years in a federal prison. So even though the police used electronic devices without a warrant, it helped the courts put an end to trying to solve these …show more content…

Therefore, not violating the Fourth Amendment law. Information shared to the public or third parties is not exactly private. The United States Supreme Court, during the case of Smith v. Maryland, ruled that, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntary turns over to third parties.” Meaning that when a person makes a call or texts someone that information is not private due to the other people involved. But, in the more recent case of Zanders v. Indiana cops used Marcus Zanders’ cell site data without a warrant to trace his location during the time periods in which several armed robberies were committed. Zanders’ case went to the Supreme Court. The court had said, “ Zanders presumptively knew that his phone makes and receives calls by sending signals to towers, and that Sprint keeps records of these signals for business purposes like billing and tracking tower usage.” Because of these statements, the ruled that the Fourth Amendment offers them no protection. So while people say that when police look through a persons’ electronic device it is invading their privacy, anything stored on one of these devices is not private. Nor is it a search when the information is shared with third

Show More
Related
863 Words | 4 Pages

These function and information does not have enough effect to the law enforcement interests. In Riley’s case, the California Court of Appeal accept the case. The court maintained the original court’s decision. The reason is in the conduction that phone related to arrestee's person immediately, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of phone data incident to an arrest.

Read More
1299 Words | 6 Pages

Supreme Court heard Riley’s case, the main issue being questioned was whether or not Riley’s Fourth Amendment Rights had been violated. The Fourth Amendment grants individuals the right, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” Thus, the Fourth Amendment would have protected Riley from an unreasonable search and seizure of his property without a warrant. The court claimed that Riley v. California brought up a concern of the reasonableness of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court referred to Weeks v. United States for the set precedent on the issue.

Read More
1170 Words | 5 Pages

In his chapter “Another Country” , David Shipler writes about his belief that the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens are being infringed upon by the modern day police force. He explains how, through the years, various court cases have changed the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, giving police the power to justify questionable methods regarding the searches of individuals, their vehicles, and other personal belongings. Shipler uses examples of firsthand experience working with policemen who specifically abused these changes in order to conduct such questionable searches. These examples involved the “frisking” of individuals as well as the stopping and searching of individuals’ vehicles without their direct consent.

Read More
866 Words | 4 Pages

As cell phones become such a necessity in life, many Americans have become so afraid of using them due to the idea that their phones are constantly being monitored. People have developed such a strong belief that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and illegal, only creating fear for so many Americans. An article provided states, “For years, the United States government has been collecting every record of every phone call you make — when you call, whom you call, how long the call lasted, and how often you make those calls.” When it comes to the Patriot Act, people are only focusing on the idea that they are being watched, and of course that only develops a deep fear of the government and overall protection. The government may be watching us, but they have created the idea that they are only monitoring us for our own

Read More
169 Words | 1 Pages

The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.

Read More
931 Words | 4 Pages

In the United States, the Constitution guarantees its citizens certain rights. The Constitution is also the basis of many processes used in the criminal justice system. This essay will provide the case law that would allow the search of the suspect’s office computer, as well as detail the investigative technique used to trace the instant message communication. The Fourth Amendment limits the power and authority of law enforcement agencies when securing people and/or their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Peak, 2012, p. 289).

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

Read More
620 Words | 3 Pages

“These phones that we hold in our pockets take note of what we buy, where and when we buy it, how much money we have in the bank, whom we text and e-mail, what web sites we visit, how and where we travel what time we go to sleep and wake up.” (Maass) Now that last one scares me a bit as it should you because law enforcement can know more about your life than you know. Our very phones have so much information about us that we personally input into the phone. “Many police agencies don’t obtain search warrants when requesting location data from carriers.” (Maass)

Read More
1385 Words | 6 Pages

This is one of many exceptions to the 4th Amendment. Additional exceptions exist and have been accepted in exclusive circumstances. These exceptions are search incident to an arrest, plain view, stop and frisk (plain feel), hot pursuit/ exigent circumstance, and the automobile exception. The plain view doctrine allows a police officer to seize objects not described in a warrant when executing a lawful search or seizure if he observes the object in plain view and has probable cause to believe that it relates to criminal activities (Busby, 2009, para. 1). For example, if an officer is executing a legal search warrant of someone’s property and while looking for the listed property, the officer comes across other illegal evidence that is in plain view, the officer may seize that new evidence legally.

Read More
948 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore, the only way a search and seizure of a citizens’ private property is legal is with a reasonable exception. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment keeps the belongings of American people secure from warrantless searches and

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

That's my tracker,” by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan they talk about how every personal information that a citizen has safe on their phone is not safe and that their phones are in danger. In the article, they mention how “1.3 million of call data was collected”. Millions of cell phone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their calls. That proves that cell phone companies have definitely been watching our every move and how our phones have obviously become like our personal trackers. In the article, they also mention how “Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones on their networks – and this data is particularly treasured by police departments and online advertisers” this obviously shows that the government is able to obtain private information from citizens.

Read More
823 Words | 4 Pages

Practice Essay - March 14, 2023 Name: Conor Thomas Type essay below: The police lights are blaring around a house in the middle of the night, you are a police officer inside the house and have the one of two suspected murderers in front of you and his phone in your hand because you have been led to believe that critical evidence to your case is on his phone. What would you do in this situation, look on his phone for the evidence? After all, it may be the only way to bring the perpetrator to justice, but some of the public disagrees and thinks that looking on his phone violates his privacy. The people are split on this subject, some say that it violates the persons privacy and even that it violates the fourth amendment, while others believe

Read More
451 Words | 2 Pages

Do you feel safe when your safety is locked away? What if I told you could have safety, but it came at the cost of privacy? Officials shouldn’t be able to search our cell phones even if it is believed it will keep the general public safe. Authorities should be able to search technology for the sake of safety.

Read More
1879 Words | 8 Pages

“The First Amendment grants the people of the United states the right to peacefully criticize law enforcement. This law doesn’t come without conditions, criticism of law enforcement duties loses protection when ‘no essential part of an exposition of ideas and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [criticism] is clearly outweighed by the social interests in order and morality’”. ( Shah, 226) Included in the First Amendment is the right for free speech and press. “The Forth Amendment is the general right to be from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ That provision has generated a complex of body case law focused on the use of force by police.

Read More
1444 Words | 6 Pages

The cellphone had evidence related to the robbery and it did not have any passcodes on it. Mr. Fearon said that his Charter right was violated as his phone was searched by the police officers. However, the Court ruled that the cellphone search fell within the scope of “search incident to arrest” and the absence of a password permitted the police to search upon arrest without a warrant, as the contents is available to other users. Furthermore, the police officer had reasons to believe that the search of cellphone content would yield relevant evidence at the time of arrest. The ruling of R v. Fearon limits one’s expectation of privacy with respect to information contained on cellphones and also broadens the admissibility of different evidence in criminal proceedings.

Read More

More about David Riley Case

Open Document