Riley V. California Case Analysis

The issue is whether evidence collected during an unwarranted search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the case of Riley v. California, a San Diego, California, police detective executed a warrantless search, by seizing a cell phone that contained private information. While on patrol, San Diego, Police officers stopped a vehicle with expired registration tags driven by David Riley. Riley was initially arrested for possession of a firearm. Upon further investigation, police discovered a cell phone that contained valuable information. As a result to the discovery of the digital information, charges were added, which resulted in his conviction. In 2014 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in recognizing privacy concerns

California case, a trial court judge denied a motion to suppress evidence stated by the defendant that his Fourth Amendment rights were in violation due to an unwarranted search of his cell phone. However, he was over ruled by the trial judge whose findings led to search-to-arrest-incident. The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court decision. Judge MacDonald agreed with the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz, that a warrantless search of a cell phone is constitutional under the search-incident-to-arrest. In a similar case, Brima Wurie was arrested for selling drugs outside a convenience store. Without a search warrant, police officers confiscated Wurie cell phone which contained personal information. Next, police jotted down a phone number that led them to an apartment complex, where drugs, money, and a gun were confiscated. The search of the apartment complex warranted a search warrant. Wurie was charged and arrested for selling drugs by a felon, and convicted of all charges against him. During his trial he was denied to suppress evidence on his cell phone because the cell phone search occurred during an incident-to-arrest, which led to his conviction. However, the First Circuit Court, reverse his denial to suppress his evidence and dismissed his conviction. Judge Stahl held that personal information contain on Wurie cell phone cannot be a search

The challenges posed by the Fourth Amendment, and the right to impose surveillance among its citizens clearly violates the right to privacy. Cell phones have created a phenomenon that was never possible before. People are able to communicate in ways that has never been possible. The development of cell phones has taken a new turn for the better. However, this modern age technology comes with a price. As written above the government has the ability to search and seize ones technological content in order to preserve evidence if they need to. They also have the ability to search and seize anybody that owns a cellphone, computer, or any technological devices. Looking back on the case of Riley v. California, David Riley had his cell phone seized into evidence and searched, which led in part to his conviction in a San Diego, California, before it was overturned. In a similar case Wurie v. California, Brima Wurie had two of his cell phones seized upon his arrest. After his indictment Wurie filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained through a warrantless search of his cell phone. The district court denied the motion, finding that the searches of his cell phones were warranted and reasonable. The overwhelming evidence on his cell phones led in part to his conviction. Both of these cases sought their Fourth Amendment rights, however, Wuries case was the only one overturned by the US District Court of Appeals, which