Case Study: Riley V. California

History has allowed for police officers to search an arrestee’s person and vehicle without a warrant under certain circumstances. However, under the Fourth Amendment, is it constitutional for police officers to search through electronic data and information instilled in a cellphone? A cellphone may contain evidence pertaining to crimes, but cellphones also hold an immense amount of personal information of not only the owner’s, but of other people as well. Riley v. California seeks to establish a fine line between law enforcement and the protection of privacy. Two particular cases encompass scenarios where problems arose when police officers searched through the contents of cellphones without a warrant. In the first case, David Riley ran into a routine traffic stop for expired tags. When the police officer found out Riley’s license was suspended, the officer followed protocol and impounded Riley’s car. After an inventory search of the car, guns were found under the hood and Riley was arrested for concealed and loaded firearms. Upon arrest, the policeman seized Riley’s smartphone and accessed its contents without a warrant. He found suspicious information that led him to believe that Riley was involved with a gang. Later at the police station, a detective specializing in gangs searched through Riley’s phone and found enough evidence to connect …show more content…
The trial court denied Riley’s motion, citing the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz, where it was concluded that the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of cellphone data incident to an arrest, if the phone was associated with the arrestee’s person. Riley was eventually charged on all three counts of firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a firearm, and attempted murder. He was sentenced fifteen years to