Can you help me with this ?

Riley Vs California Case

Name

Student Affiliation

<<<Tense sensitivity… chose a tense and stick w it. Past or present>>>

Riley Vs California case concerns a vital Fourth Amendment privacy issue that affects millions of Americans yearly; police officers’ right to search for a cell phone warrant during an arrest. For this case the lower court ruled that the police officers are not entitled to seize and obtain a suspects cell phone after an arrest. Officers are also prohibited to search the contents of the gadget without any probable cause. The Supreme Court in the United States gave a warrant of search and seizure of digital contents of a mobile phone, this was during an arrest and violates of the United States Constitution. The police stopped a driver for driving with expired registration tags and reviewed the contents in the drivers Smartphone. The court stated that, cell phones are different from other items that can warrant the arrest of an individual both in quantitative and qualitative sense, therefore they require a warrant to search.

Traffic police stopped Riley due to violation of the traffic rules they also impounded his car. Police were forced to perform a routine inventory and search Riley’s vehicle, discovering firearms. Consequently, the police arrested Riley for illegal possession of a concealed and loaded firearms. They assessed Riley’s phone by searching for gang related crimes, Due to the evidence found on his phone, judges of shooting and attempted matter were charged against him. Before the trial, Riley wanted to suppress the evidence that was found on his phone, due to the fact that he believed it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment Right. The court that dealt with his trial was against his intention; similarly California Court of Appeal affirmed his charges.

Overview of the decision

Roberts J represented the standing of the court. The Supreme court of the United States was given a presentation with a Fourth Amendment issue on whether police officers can confiscate items including digital information on a cell phone that was captured at the period of arrest. Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave a decision that permission should be given before searches for information on cell phones, which were captured at the moment of arrest. Similarly, the search incidences does not allow search on cell phones. In conclusion, the court came to know the importance of mobile phones and the significance of the data that these phones contain. <<Conclusion comes at end?>>. The court was against the government’s decisions concerning the exigency that was created due to destruction of vital information on the phone by a third party. The court came to a decision that digital data on a phone does not put one’s life into risk and this cannot be considered as a weapon that can cause harm to a police officer and it cannot help in the convict arrest escape.

The high courts were presented with a complex mix on the issues at hand, including the cell phone and other digital devices. The questions that the Supreme Court were subjected to were: if the law enforcement should possess any unfettered, warrantless and access to ay possibly incriminating or rather embarrassing digital evidence. How search of cell phones are normally different from wallets, diaries, suitcases and vehicle compartments. If the current and future cases of digital devices are to be titled similar legal protections for example tablets, laptops and desktops and GPS gadgets and wearable camera. And what kind of data are subject to initial searches and which ones are not, for instance the caller ID ,call records, contact list, photos and videos and how far a police officer can chase away encrypted devices that result in new models.

The lower courts were divided on how to deal with the case of a 40-year-old man in the high court precedent, which permits search for items that a suspect owns. Searches of homes require that warrants be issued with constitutional protection, that differ from search of a vehicle or a person in the public. The case of David Riley was given much attention in the high court because this case attracted more scrutiny. Riley was arrested in 2009 for having an expired vehicle registration and driving using a suspended license. The police impounded the vehicle and found out weapons that were hidden under the wood. Police in San Diego searched for his Smartphone. Text messages, contacts and videos on his phone made the police officers believe that Riley was involved in organizing crime connections certain photograph on the phone showed a vehicle that had earlier owned the suspects that linked an earlier drive through shooting. A 15-year court convict was issued on him.

Additionally, there was a case of Wurie in the year 2007 involving the sale of two packets of crack cocaine. Boston policed used call logs, from a phone found in his possession, to trace back real home address of the person after Wurie issued a bogus one<<WHos the person?>>. As they searched they found more drugs and a weapon of ammunition, Wurie was convicted at the courts and served 22 years behind bars.

In both of the cases mentioned, the police officers were not warranted before they searched the phones. One appeal court upheld the decision on Riley’s conviction while the other pardoned Wuries conviction.

During the argument Riley’s lawyer informed the judges that giving police too much discretion over seizing of items will eventually change the nature and privacy of the people. Divisions on the bench were on whether the mobile phones were different. The high court always affirms the governments discretion to carry out a warrantless initial pat downs on searches of an individual in order to ensure police officers are safe and minimal destruction of evidence.

Petitioner Riley’s Brief

Riley argues that the search on his phone was not justified under the Chime exception as it was unnecessary to serve any legitimate government interest. He argues that the phone did not at any point put the officer’s lives at risk and searching for more information after the capture was not necessary, as it did not prevent destruction of evidence (Mason, & Stephenson Jr, 2017). . Riley argues that the search on his cell phone was not lawful especially on the sensitivity of the information on his phone. Additionally he argues that it is not sufficient for the court to establish a rule that limits the cell phone search to situations where the gadget has information that warrants person’s arrest. He says that the search of cell phone was unconstitutional to warrant the search under the exception.

The Search Incident to Arrest Exception

The supreme court outlined the search incident to arrest exception in Chimel V California ,395 U.S 752 (1969) and United States Vs Robinson in 414 U.S 218 (1973) giving police the mandate to search for a person’s vicinity at a point of lawful arrest. This serves two government purposes, the need to prevent destruction of evidence and to prevent destruction of evidence. Additionally the court rules that searches that were undertaken outside the judicial process were partially unreasonable (Mason, & Stephenson Jr, 2017).  The court explains that in circumstances where there is no possibility of a suspect gaining access to a weapon that destroys evidence, the justifications for search incidence of arrest exception are absent and rules do not apply. Aizona V Grant 556 U.S 339 (2009).The fourth Amendment states that the searches that are conducted outside the judicial process without any approval by the judge or magistrate is unreasonable.

The court’s decision concerning the cell phone privacy resulted in Fourth Amendment of the digital era. The view of the Chief justice is true. The result concurs with the Fourth Amendment regarding officers obtaining warrants before searching a cell phone captured after one is arrested. This case portrays court decisions that are able to deal with challenges of the digital era. The conclusion of the court that data is different will have an impact on digital search cases and cloud based data. It the volume of sensitive data stored in a cell phone makes things different, then the same can be issued on laptops, tablets and other servers (Roternberg, & Bluter, 2014). The reasoning, for officers to erase data captured that is not relevant, supports the court decision on riley’s case.

The court’s decision is clear on the third party rule, whereby the non-content records for example location of data, call logs and other metadata held by third parties can be fully controlled by the government without a warrant. Meta data can show a person’s private data and individual private concerns it can also show the location of a person 9Roternberg, & Bluter, 2014). In relation to Justice Sotomayors case in United States V Jones concerning GPS tracking, explains that though data stored on a phone is different from physical records through quantity alone certain data differ qualitatively. For instance the browsing history of an individual can be obtained from the web and can portray a person’s private interest concerns. Data on a Smartphone can show what an individual was doing. Historical information is a standardized feature that Smartphone’s can track an individual’s movements.

Riley decision concurs with reconceptualization of searches in the digital era that one can move from his home room the center of the Fourth Amendment universe. The court explains s that a cell phone can expose the government more (Roternberg, & Bluter, 2014).. A mobile phone not only contains a digital form but also sensitive records of data found at home/It also contains private data that is not found at home but in the phone. This violates the law of trespass and property invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

References

Mason, A. T., & Stephenson Jr, D. G. (2017). American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge.

Walters, J. (1992). The official bulletin of the United States: America's first official gazette. Government Publications Review, 19(3), 243-256. doi:10.1016/0277-9390(92)90064-i

Roternberg, M., & Bluter, A. (2014). Symposium: In Riley v. California, a unanimous Supreme Court sets out Fourth Amendment for digital age. Retrieved from http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/symposium-in-riley-v-california-a-unanimous-supreme-court-sets-out-fourth-amendment-for-digital-age/