Riley vs California
CASE: (Riley vs California)
Petitioner: David Leon Riley
On August 22, 2009 a person David Leon Riley was stopped by the police for traffic violation.
He was travelling in a car bearing expired registration tags and the San Diego Police stopped him to impose a ticket, when they found that Riley was driving with an expired license too. The police eventually discovered some fire weapons under the hood of the vehicle, when they were supposed to tow and impound the vehicle, according to the Police Department’s policy.
The officer who was handling Riley’s incident seized his cell phone during the search. The officer accessed the information from his phone and realized that repeated phone calls were exchanged from the members …show more content…
when he was already being charged for expired licenses and registration tags. The reasoning was that several other cases were subjected to such seizures without warrant for preserving evidences. Like the People v Diaz case where the court held the search to be valid and the US v Edward case, where his clothes were seized after 10 hours of his arrest to collect evidence. From these history of cases, it stated that the search and seizure in Riley’s case was valid.
Supreme Court’s Review on Riley v California:
This case basically combines two cases, The Riley and the Wurie case. Relay argued that digital contents of a smart phone do not harm the Police officer’s safety and thus it violates the privacy rights according to the constitution.
Jeffrey L. Fisher: This law professor from Stanford university argued that though six courts argue allow these type of searches, the other three courts don’t.
Fisher argued that such searches would open every American’s entire personal things and life to the police.
Decision:
Chief Justice John Roberts:
He concluded that a warrant is required to search a cell
CASE: (Riley vs California)
Petitioner: David Leon Riley
On August 22, 2009 a person David Leon Riley was stopped by the police for traffic violation.
He was travelling in a car bearing expired registration tags and the San Diego Police stopped him to impose a ticket, when they found that Riley was driving with an expired license too. The police eventually discovered some fire weapons under the hood of the vehicle, when they were supposed to tow and impound the vehicle, according to the Police Department’s policy.
The officer who was handling Riley’s incident seized his cell phone during the search. The officer accessed the information from his phone and realized that repeated phone calls were exchanged from the members …show more content…
when he was already being charged for expired licenses and registration tags. The reasoning was that several other cases were subjected to such seizures without warrant for preserving evidences. Like the People v Diaz case where the court held the search to be valid and the US v Edward case, where his clothes were seized after 10 hours of his arrest to collect evidence. From these history of cases, it stated that the search and seizure in Riley’s case was valid.
Supreme Court’s Review on Riley v California:
This case basically combines two cases, The Riley and the Wurie case. Relay argued that digital contents of a smart phone do not harm the Police officer’s safety and thus it violates the privacy rights according to the constitution.
Jeffrey L. Fisher: This law professor from Stanford university argued that though six courts argue allow these type of searches, the other three courts don’t.
Fisher argued that such searches would open every American’s entire personal things and life to the police.
Decision:
Chief Justice John Roberts:
He concluded that a warrant is required to search a cell