ipl-logo

Riley Vs California Case Study

1299 Words6 Pages

Laurel Oetken
BLAW 300, Section 900
Russell
2 February, 2017
Case Brief #1: Riley v. California In Riley v. California, in 2014, David Riley was stopped and pulled over by a police officer for a traffic violation. The violation deemed that Riley was driving with expired registration tags on his vehicle. Upon pulling over, the officer learned that Riley’s license had been suspended. Before impounding Riley’s vehicle, the officer preformed routine checks on the vehicle and of the suspect. One check included conducting an inventory search of the car. Through a thorough search of the vehicle, the officer discovered that Riley was in possession of concealed and loaded firearms, including two handguns, which were located under the car’s hood. …show more content…

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. Within this court case, it was determined that that searches and seizures require a warrant unless it is to prevent a future crime from happening. The court also referenced Arizona v. Gant, which focused on whether or not officers may search property found on or near the arrestee and also discussed elements of Chimel v. California, which stated that it is reasonable for an officer to search a person and that it is reasonable for an officer to search and seize any evidence from an arrestee if it is to protect it from being destroyed. The Supreme Court also cited United States v. Robinson, which also cited that a search led to …show more content…

Alito wrote a concurring opinion to address two separate points. The first being that rules set in place in relation to searches with arrests were established a long time ago and are not exclusively set in place to protect arresting officers or to prevent the destruction of evidence. Secondly, Alito notes that the laws set in place that govern arrest and seizure of property date back centuries ago and may not be applicable to the changing world around us. Alito stated that courts should not apply a rule that was used in the “pre-digital era” to search a cell phone, especially when cell phones can be used not only to access loads of information, but can store personal information as well. Alito stated that the law enforcement officers need a set of clear rules regarding searches incident to arrest. Additionally, Alito implied that laws should be set by the courts to create a balance between searching cell phones and protecting privacy interests of individuals who own cell

Show More
Related

Chimel Vs. California Case Study

455 Words | 2 Pages

Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.

Read More

California Vs. Greenwood Case Study

478 Words | 2 Pages

The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

Read More

The United States V. Place 462 US Case Brief

510 Words | 3 Pages

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

Read More

Wendell Clayton Case Study

1593 Words | 7 Pages

The accused, Wendell Clayton, was found in possession of a loaded illegal handgun which is banned under Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. A caller inside the coffee time store called 911 at about 1:22 reporting that there were around 10 black guys in the parking lot of The Million Dollar store, a strip club, across the street from him. The caller reported that certain individuals, 4 of the 10 black guys had guns on them and were openly displaying their handguns in the middle of the parking lot. Police immediately responded and within minutes the officers set up a roadblock in front of the exits to the location. As there were two entrances into the club’s parking lot, the officers positioned their vehicles so everything and anything harmful

Read More

People V. Riley Case Brief

463 Words | 2 Pages

Three related precedents govern the extent to which officers may search property found on or near an arrestee. Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, requires that a search incident to arrest be limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control, where it is justified by the interests in officer safety and in preventing evidence

Read More

David Leon Riley Case Study

1083 Words | 5 Pages

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.

Read More

Terry V. Ohio Case Study

1525 Words | 7 Pages

I believe this case should have at least been sent back by an appeal court and tried again. The state of ohio should have lost the case because it was unreasonable to search a man that was walking around a street corner and immediately pat him down and use illegal evidence in the case. Chief justice warren should have seen the fact that detective mcfadden knew he was going to be on that stake out and he should have recognized that he needed to go get a search warrant just in case he needed to search the men. Detective mcfadden was out of line in my eyes by searching the men without a warrant from a judge. If he would have gotten a warrant i would be completely in agreement with him and the 8 justices that ruled in favor of detective mcfadden, knowing that he in fact did not have any legal reasoning to search the men makes it hard for me to agree with the justices that ruled in his favor.

Read More

Riley Vs California Case Study

649 Words | 3 Pages

The California Court of Appeal later affirmed the convictions and denied the suppression of evidence on the basis of California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz. 3. Issue: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Riley involves whether police officers can search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant during an arrest. In Riley v. California, the lower court ruled that a police officer not only can seize and secure a suspect’s cell phone during an arrest, but they can also search the contents of that phone without a warrant or probable cause.

Read More

Minnesota Vs Dickerson Case Study

1019 Words | 5 Pages

In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view. Officers have the right to take any tangible items from an individual they may be frisking down at the moment if the officer has probable cause and believes that the items are related to a crime. Under the plain view doctrine, any contraband may be seized and used against an individual if it is in plain view, or in the reach of an officer; if the officer has been given permission to be in the place where the contraband is located; and if the individual has characterized suspicious behavior that led the officers to have probable cause to further retain the items in

Read More

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Barron V. Baltimore

1009 Words | 5 Pages

When Weeks was arrested, police officers entered his home without a warrant by using a key and began searching it for evidence. The officers then turned over evidence to the U.S. Marshals that was used to get a conviction. Weeks appealed the conviction which eventually came to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the search violated Weeks rights under the 4th Amendment. This ruling also prevented local police officers from securing evidence by ways that are prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to federal investigators.

Read More

Terry V. Ohio Tests The Limitations Of The Fourth Amendment

841 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore the officer held a stop and frisk and found a .38 on both men. Officer McFadden states that he feared the two men may have had a gun. Therefore during an investigation, he does have the right to stop and frisk those men. Any kind of search and seizure must be thought of under the certain circumstances. In this case, it is two men walking past a storefront a few dozen times and having a meeting after every time they walked the block.

Read More

Terry's Case: The Michigan V. Long Case

403 Words | 2 Pages

The precedent was set in Terry v. Ohio, when the courts ruled that it was sensible for an officer to carry out a restricted search and, if required, seizure of weaponries on an individual that the officer realistically considers could be armed. The result of the Terry case was useful in the case of Michigan v. Long. In this particular case, the standard of the police search in the Terry case was expanded to include motor vehicles. According to the Michigan v. Long case, the court ruled that the police were within their rights of conducting a “Terry’s” search of the person of interest vehicle. In this case, the evidence gained from the search was not discarded as a violation of the person’s Fourth Amendment, but rather seen as being prudently

Read More

Riley Vs California Research Paper

833 Words | 4 Pages

Roberts. The Court’s decision was a unanimous 9-0 in favor of David Riley (Oyez, “Riley v. California”). This means that there was no dissenting opinion because the all the judges voted the same. In the judges statement says that it is unnecessary to search the phone right away because it can just be held until a proper warrant is obtained. The judges also claimed that because of the “Cloud” most of the information that would be searched is not technically in physical possession of the person.(Oyez, “Riley v. California”).

Read More

David Riley Case

619 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More

Wolf V. Colorado Case Brief

584 Words | 3 Pages

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

Read More

More about Riley Vs California Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document