The issue that is of relevance in this case would be how the search without a warrant on Riley’s cell phone during an arrest was seen as wrong and an invasion of privacy. Riley had every right to be pulled over driving on a suspended license and expired tags for his vehicle but when arrested had his phone turned into a gang unit detective and searched thoroughly connecting him to a shooting that was gang related. This case is the reason why warrants are needed to search through cell phones because when this case was taken to court the justices voted 9-0 on the new law seeing that without one would be an invasion of privacy.
Background
David Leone Riley was a blood and member of the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego. On the date of August 22, 2009 Riley was pulled over for a traffic violation, but when asked they found his license was suspended. This alone would already give Mr. Riley a misdemeanor and would go on his record. When driving on a suspended license the protocol is to have the car impounded but first thoroughly checked for any illegal weapons or drugs. When searching the vehicle police found 2 loaded firearms and arrested Riley. While under arrest the police seized his cellular device and handed it over to a gang unit detective. The detective noticed in his photo album that he had multiple pictures with gang members and pictures of him holding up gang signs. Riley was than connected to the shooting on August 2, 2009 against a rival gang member via pictures and phone calls to that date. Riley requested that the evidence brought to court from the search be suppressed seeing that it was from an unreasonable search. His request was not granted and the gang detective testified against Riley for active membership in the Lincoln Park gang, rivalry between the 2 gangs, and how the shooting was between rivals. At this time warrants were not necessary to search through cell phones because this was never an issue but as the technology has advanced more laws have needed to be put into place to make the laws fair.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Petition before the Supreme Court
The defendant argument was how the warrantless search was to protect the officers involved. Cell phone data might help secure officers’ safety in more ways or to prevent a getaway. The State said that Riley had committed those crimes for a street gang which would extend the sentence he would be receiving.
Majority Decision of the Court
The plaintiff stated that the digital data stored on the phone can’t be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to plan an escape from custody. The supreme court decided on a majority vote that information searched from a phone is an “invasion of privacy because they hold a lot of personal and private information”. The digital data can’t be used as a weapon to harm an officer, and police officers have the ability to protect evidence while waiting for a warrant by turning off the phone. On June 25, 2014 the majority decision took place. The justices who voted for the majority decision were Justice Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the opinion for the unanimous court. The majority opinion was that the court “characterized cell phones as microcomputers with huge amounts of private information that wouldn’t be fair under the 4th Amendment to check”.
Dissenting Opinion
The supreme court’s vote in the dissent was 0 because this case won by a majority vote of 9-0. Out of the 9 justices dissented in this case because everyone found cell phones to be microscopic computers with large amounts of private information. There was one concurring opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and how the warrantless search exception would only be for officer safety or preserving evidence which neither was an issue at the time of the arrest. The concurring opinion was the only opinion.
Significance
This case was at the time of technological advancement in 2014 and became the reason why the supreme court now requires warrants to look through cellular devices. Looking through Riley’s cell phone was a violation of his 4th Amendment which protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The only exception was for officer safety which was not even at stake during the arrest. This case changed the way officers do their protocol because they are only able to preserve evidence inside disclosed bags. Riley v. California added to the 4th Amendment for the better in my opinion because the way Riley was convicted was through a search that should have never happened.
Reflection
I have a very strong thoughts on this case because yes, Riley was in the wrong being an active gang member and doing a drive by on a rival member. Riley also shouldn't have been driving on a suspended license with 2 loaded guns in the car and has every right to be indicted. I personally feel that when cell phones were first starting to get more advanced that they reformed the laws so that this case would have never been taken to the supreme court. Not only that I feel like maybe because Riley was a man of color the officers may have racially profiled him because he wasn’t already known as a gang member, but they portrayed him to be without obtaining evidence first. I believe Riley got what he deserved because in our legal system if you want to be about that life than you have to be prepared for the consequences.
Stuck on your essay?
