homework2

Writer: Charlie Kaing

Riley vs California

Riley versus California is a supreme court case that held that warrantless searches of digital contents of cell phones during an arrest is unconstitutional. David Leon Riley opened fire on rival gang members during a shootout while eventually he was arrested police searched his and found two handguns causing him to be arrested while arrested his phone was searched and found evidence of gang membership however Riley's lawyer argued that the use of cell phone evidence was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. 

The court ruled unanimously that warrantless searches on cell phones is a violation of the fourth amendment while officers have the right to preserve evidence they would still have to request a warrant to search phones. The California Supreme Court originally declared that the search was lawful due to occurring during “a search incident to arrest” and reasoned that historical precedent from previous court cases. However when the case was brought to the supreme court they agreed that searching of cell phone data was a violation of the fourth amendment with chief justice roberts writing “Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee's escape” arguing that warrantless searches only applies to weapons and is to protect officers safety but wouldn’t apply to phones since it cannot be used as a weapon but they can still examine it but may not use data that is in the phone. Justice Samuel Alito expressed doubts that warrant less searches exist to protect officers but agreed that for the sake of privacy interest that it was the best solution to this case.

 I Believe that this case is important since phones nowadays contain pretty much everything about our lives from our social media to bank account information which is why privacy protection is so important. Impact that this case could have is that more of our data could be protected from unlawful seizures and protection data such as private information could now open up more laws around preventing authorities from searching private data without warrants. What do you think about the fourth amendment and its relevance with how our phones can now reveal a lot about selves nowadays

References

"Riley v. California." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132. Accessed 8 Jul. 2020.

Writer :Youbin An

18:43

Kahler v. Kansas

On the case, Kahler v. Kansas, the question on whether or not a state may abolish the insanity defense without violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, Kahler, was charged with a death sentence for murdering his wife, two daughters, and his mother-in-law. He was also diagnosed with depression and obsessive compulsive disorder due to family troubles. Kahler’s lawyer defended Kahler with an insanity defense claim, as Kahler was not able to make a rational decision due to his mental illnesses. In the Kansas Supreme Court, they claimed that the insanity defense can not be used unless “the defendant lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged”("Kahler v. Kansas"). 

The case won by 6:3, with majority opinion by Elena Kagan, in favor of Kansas. The court ruled that the two amendments didn’t require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that considers a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong because it still permitted mental illness as a defense if the mental illness prevented the defendant from forming a criminal intent. The states reserved the rights to define the insanity defense since there was no single version of the criminal defense. 

I think this issue is important because it gives an example of what powers are limited for the states and what powers the federal government doesn’t have. Allowing the states their own version of insanity defense shows that the state has the power to choose their own guidelines under their own state while the federal government has no right to interfere. The opposing side, Justice Stephen Bryer, argued that Kansas has completely redefined the insanity defense and got rid of the main purpose of the defense. He concluded that Kansas violated a fundamental perception of the nation’s criminal law and that it’s version of the insanity defense was, therefore, unconstitutional.

There was a debate on how much the federal government could influence the state laws. There was some suggestion from Justice Jareb Gleckel that there should be a line drawn for the insanity test so they can determine which criminal act and mental illness can be applicable for the insanity defense. Some also believed that the defendant’s mental illness needed to be testified under oath by a mental health expert. 

Work Cited: 

"Kahler v. Kansas." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-6135. Accessed 8. Jul. 2020

Questions:

Why do you think the Supreme Court has yet to develop a fundamental guideline for the insanity defense? How do you feel about how much power the federal government has over the states and what powers should be allowed to both sides?