Riley Vs California Case Study

Supreme Court Report Was the searching of a man’s cell phone data without a warrant from an officer a violation of the fourth amendment? The case that deals with this serious problem is the case of Riley v. California. Riley v. California deals not only with search warrants but also the exceptions that are associated with search warrants. Search warrants for policemen and other government agencies has been a big topic of discussion for years now. Search warrants typically deal with the right to privacy. The right to privacy is listed in the fourth amendment as a constitutional right. The fourth amendment mentions how citizens have protection against unlawful searches and seizures. Mr. Riley and his lawyer attempted to argue that the search

Riley’s lawyer gathered as much evidence as he could to prove that the San Diego police officer did not have the right to confiscate Riley’s cell phone without a warrant. Riley’s lawyer also believed that because the officer search without a warrant he violated Riley’s fourth amendment right. At Mr. Riley’s trial, police officers testified about the photographs and other sources on the cell phone and these were admitted into evidence. The trial court wound up rejecting all of the lawyers arguments and believed that the search followed the “search incident to a lawful arrest” doctrine. This doctrine allows for police to conduct a search on items such as cell phones whenever that item is found near the suspect at the time of arrest. Mr. Riley was convicted and because his charges were gang related his sentence was enhanced to fifteen years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and relied on a case known as People v. Diaz to assist with making this decision. The decision of this case states that the fourth amendment permits a warrantless search of cell phone data incident to arrest, so as long as the cell phone was immediately associated with the arrestees person. This case was sent to Chief Justice Jon Roberts in The California Supreme Court for further review and for the justices to make a

Roberts reasoning for this decision is that a phones data is harmless therefore confiscating it without a warrant should not be necessary. Unless the phone contained a weapon inside of it or its case, such as a small knife or razor blade, then it should be confiscated immediately because of the fact that an officer feels immediate harm due to the weapon. Justice Roberts also stated that if an officer is attempting to preserve the phone for evidence they should disconnect the phone from the network and place the phone in a bag for later research. An officer shouldn’t be allowed to view any data on a cell phone or any time of computer. Justice Alito, another judge that was involved in this case concurred in the judgement by stating, “I agree with the Court law that law enforcement officers, in conducting a lawful search incident to arrest, must generally obtain a warrant before searching information stored or accessible on a cell phone.” Chief Justice Jon Roberts and Justice Alito were joined by seven other justices. Those justices included Justice Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. On April 29, 2017 these justices ultimately decided to reverse