ipl-logo

Riley Vs California Case Study

1243 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Essay on mandatory detention policies

Riley v. California 573 U.S. ____ (2014)

By: Jonathan Feltis
December 16, 2015
Dr. Bobby Lomeli, AJ12

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the case of Riley v. California and a very similar case United States v. Wurie, and decided on June 25, 2014, whether or not the data of a cell phone (smart phone) can be searched incident to arrest without a warrant. Before Riley v. California was decided, information about searching the data of cell phones was vague. There were differing rulings by state and federal courts whether or not police can search a cell phones digital contents without a warrant. States such as California, Georgia and Massachusetts allowed warrant less searches incident to arrest. Other states like Florida …show more content…

After being sentenced, Riley filed for an appeal. The California Supreme Court reviewed Riley 's case on February 8, 2013. The court relied on a previous court decision in People v. Diaz 51 Cal. 4Th 84 244 P. 3d 501 (2011). The ruling in People v. Diaz states that police are not required to obtain a warrant to search data on a cell phone, as long as it was on the arrestee’s person or in the immediate area due to the search incident to arrest doctrine. The court denied Riley 's petition for review and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari (a writ or order by which a higher court reviews the decision of …show more content…

The second main point of argument that the court listened to was based on the precedent case of Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969). In Chimel, it was ruled that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the body of a person and the immediate area, to remove any weapons for officer safety. It is also reasonable to seize any evidence found in order to prevent it 's concealment or destruction. The Chimel case also was the base to the Search Incident To Arrest doctrine. On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody. An officer could physically search the cell phone and it 's case for weapons, such as a razor blade. The State countered that the suspect 's cell phone could be used to call associates to aid him, which would affect officer safety. Allowing the officer to search the cell phone without a warrant might give him/her warning that someone is coming. On the point of protecting evidence from concealment or destruction, Riley argued that once a cell phone has been seized, there is no need for the officer to search the digital contents to protect it. The State countered, saying that the data on a cell phone, when in custody of police, is subject to

Show More
Related
455 Words | 2 Pages

They have also said that it is reasonable for any officer to do an immediate area search of where that individual is to make sure that they can not grab anything for a weapon like for example a knife. The Supreme Court clearly notes in its opinion that such searches have to happen in the immediate area of arrest and any such search outside that area must be made with a search warrant. In Chimel case the officers could have patted down Chimel and then done a search of the immediate area to make sure that no weapons were hiding around. But once they began looking all around the house that requires a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s

Read More
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
695 Words | 3 Pages

Although, the police officers had a search warrant they had it for the wrong unit which placed a family in danger and they raided the wrong unit in the first place but then raided the right one where they find the evidence but because it was found illegally the judge dismissed all of the evidence against Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins because of the Exclusionary Rule. Now the reason the evidence was dismissed was because there was no specific address on the warrant and this means that an officer cannot just search every unit in the multi-family house until they find evidence against the

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.

Read More
830 Words | 4 Pages

Illinois v. Cabelles In 1998 Roy Caballes was pulled over for speeding, the police officers were entirely within the law and their jurisdiction, however, when they hindered the stop and preformed a sniff search they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officer Gillette proceeds as he does in all traffic stops and requested Caballes for his license, registration, and insurance and if he had any warrants, Caballes stated he did not, in addition if he had ever been arrested before in which Caballes stated he had not. The officer’s last request to search Caballes vehicle, Caballes kindly stated no. Upon returning to his police cruiser to run a want and warrants check on Caballes, Officer Gillette found out that Caballes had been arrested

Read More
1593 Words | 7 Pages

The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the

Read More
942 Words | 4 Pages

This is simply not the case in the search of digital media because the evidence is not tangible and serves no immediate threat to the officer. Also, “faraday bags” exist to store the evidence until a warrant is obtained and the phone can be disconnected from any network and turned off until that warrant is obtained. The supreme court has, in previous cases, established that cell phones are “minicomputers filled with massive amounts of private information” and this served the purpose of differentiating them from traditional items that can be searched immediately following arrest such as a wallet. But the court held that in the event that it was crucial to governmental interests, a warrantless search of a cell phone could be executed. Another prominent concurring opinion was sponsored by conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. who stated that although he doubts that warrantless searches are truly justifiably for the protection of officers and preservation of evidence the court’s majority opinion is the best one in the given circumstances.

Read More
674 Words | 3 Pages

The judge in the specific Milwaukee case stated that “A person wanted on probable cause (and an arrest warrant) who is taken into custody in a public place where he had no legitimate expectation of privacy cannot complain about how the police learned his location” This argument doesn’t make much sense if you change it to be about something other than a phone. If the police searched the man’s house without a warrant in order to learn his location, then in court any evidence that they obtained within the house would be thrown out. The judge is pretty much

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it

Read More
299 Words | 2 Pages

Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.

Read More
234 Words | 1 Pages

In the case, the Court did not see sufficient evidence to support the claim that the police violated the respondent’s Fourth Amendment right, prior to entering the resident. There is no evidence of threats or demands made by the police officers, that would insinuate the officer did anything wrong. Because the police in this case did not violate or threaten to violate the Fourth Amendment prior to the exigency, the Court held that the exigency did in fact justify the warrantless search. The officers re-acted upon suspicion and training (Vile, n.d.).

Read More
1777 Words | 8 Pages

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away.

Read More
427 Words | 2 Pages

Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to

Read More
796 Words | 4 Pages

An officer may only be allowed to search a person 's personal belongings if their reasoning is associated with a lawful arrest and if they have a probable cause to search (Matthews). After it being a huge deal in New York, other cities and states began embracing the use of stop-and-frisk as it began growing around the United States. In the 1950s police officials in other cities took up, and expanded, the stop-and-search tactics by using the LAPD to embrace the theory of crime

Read More
260 Words | 2 Pages

This exception should and should not be extended to warrantless searches when an officer has a good-faith belief that probable cause exists depending on the circumstances. A warrantless search is from a different perspective. It is a legally consented search due to exigent circumstances, emergency, and plain view. The warrantless search conducted by good faith should suppress the evidence only when the criteria of invalid consent are not meet. If an officer abuses their authority, harasses, prolong questioning, and intimidate a detaining this ruling should apply.

Read More

More about Riley Vs California Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document