Next, almost five years later another outstanding case that was brought to court was United States v. Robinson. In this case, an officer arrested Robinson due to operating a vehicle with a license that was revoked. Once Robinson was in the officer’s custody, the officer performed a pat-down, and could not determine what was in Robinson’s jacket pocket. Therefore, the item was seized and the officer was able to identify the object as a package of cigarettes. However, from there the officer continued to search through the package of cigarettes and found that there were fourteen capsules of heroin inside (Riley, n.d.).
When the case was brought to the United States Court of Appeals, the determination was that the officer performed a search that
…show more content…
Gant is the third and final tremendously important case that had historical development into the case law applicable to Riley v. California. In the case of Arizona v. Gant, a vehicle search was the immediate concern, and whether or not the passenger compartment could lawfully be searched without a warrant. In this case, the court noted that this was different than the Chimel case because in that case, it dealt with an arrested person and an unsecured area that was within their reach, that area could be searched to protect the officer. Therefore, this case is different, due to the fact that the passenger compartment was secured. However, the court determined that this is an exception, and it was allowable to search the passenger compartment without a warrant only when there is a reasonable thought there is going to be evidence in the compartment that is pertinent to the arrest. The court was forthcoming when they noted that the decision, in this case, was not decided based off of the Chimel case, this case was thought to have extremely different factors from the Chimel case, and needed to be addressed separately (Riley, …show more content…
A persons’ privacy goes well beyond just what is commonly expected based on human nature. Privacy needs to be taken seriously due to the dangerous effects that can come about if there is an intrusion. So, for the courts to not address the blatantly obvious concerns of privacy due to cellular phones would be highly misjudged. Further, even though there is a better chance now with legislation to make strides in the realm of cellular data protection in relation to the Fourth Amendment, if it is not worked on and if we do not progress, generations to come will do nothing but further suffer (David Leon Riley, v. CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES, v. BRIMA WURIE, 2014; Dee,