Facts: David Riley was pulled over by the police for a traffic violation. Because Riley was driving with a suspended driver's license the car was searched and impounded. The police found inside the car two loaded guns. Riley was arrested for the possession of firearms. While searching him the officer also seized the suspect’s cell phone. In the station house, a detective searched Riley’s phone and found him making gang signs which determine Riley was gang affiliated. Riley was tied to the shooting and charged with attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm.
Procedure: Based on Section 3, of the Fourth Amendment a “warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has …show more content…
The court concluded that a warrantless search is only pardoned when there are purposes of protecting the arresting officer or to preserve any essential evidence. None of these two exceptions were present during the arrest and seizure of the cell phone. Police officers have the capability to protect internal cell phone evidence by disconnecting the phone from the network or even placing the phone in a faraday bag. Apart from preserving evidence, digital data cannot be used in a manner to harm a police officer. There was no proof of exigent circumstances during the arrest of Riley, so the arresting officer and detective violated David Riley’s Fourth amendment right. In today’s generation cell phones are now like pocket computers that are overloaded with immense amounts of private information. The material stored in cell phones cannot be compared to other routine items, like wallets, that are usually seized during an arrest. If the arresting officer really felt the need to search the contents of the cell phone, then a “police officer can e-mail warrant request to judges […] [and] judges have signed such warrants and e-mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”. Consequently, the evidence obtained from Riley’s smart phone is in violation of his Fourth Amendment
Procedure: Based on Section 3, of the Fourth Amendment a “warrant requirement may be excused in exigent circumstances if an officer has …show more content…
The court concluded that a warrantless search is only pardoned when there are purposes of protecting the arresting officer or to preserve any essential evidence. None of these two exceptions were present during the arrest and seizure of the cell phone. Police officers have the capability to protect internal cell phone evidence by disconnecting the phone from the network or even placing the phone in a faraday bag. Apart from preserving evidence, digital data cannot be used in a manner to harm a police officer. There was no proof of exigent circumstances during the arrest of Riley, so the arresting officer and detective violated David Riley’s Fourth amendment right. In today’s generation cell phones are now like pocket computers that are overloaded with immense amounts of private information. The material stored in cell phones cannot be compared to other routine items, like wallets, that are usually seized during an arrest. If the arresting officer really felt the need to search the contents of the cell phone, then a “police officer can e-mail warrant request to judges […] [and] judges have signed such warrants and e-mailed them back to officers in less than 15 minutes”. Consequently, the evidence obtained from Riley’s smart phone is in violation of his Fourth Amendment