Riley V. California Case Study
August 2, 2009 David Leon Riley and others from his gang opened fire on a member of a different gang driving by. They used Riley's car to get away and then left the car somewheres else. On August 22, 2009 they pulled Riley over while he was driving another car on an expired license registration tag. After Riley was stopped for this violation the officer seized and searched his phone without a warrant, he was arrested on weapon charges. The Riley v. California case was argued April 29, 2014 and decided on June 25, 2014.The main issue in this case was how the police officer searched his phone without a warrant then arrested him and if this action violated the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment clearly states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”.
…show more content…
The plaintiff David Leon Riley moved to suppress all evidence the police obtained from his phone. Although this action was denied he insisted that the searches of his phone violated the fourth amendment because they had done it without a warrant and were not justified by any demanding circumstances at the time. The defendant, California testified about the photographs and videos found on the phone as a response to Riley’s argument. This type of case happened another time with Brima Wurie. The case was called Wurie v. United States. What happened to Wurie was very similar to what happened to Riley. Wurie was violated his fourth amendment when a police officer searched and seized his phone without a warrant because he was caught selling drugs. Wurie also lost his case it helped shape today's society along with Riley's case.
Although the police officer violated the fourth amendment Riley was still convicted on all counts of being in connection with an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and attempted murder. The Supreme Court's final decision was that he would receive a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for his actions. The precedent of this case is that police officers are now required to have a search warrant to search a person's cell phone unless it is extremely urgent. Officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant.
The Riley v.
California case along with the Wurie v. United States case both helped change police protocol across the nation so that no one else would have their fourth amendment violated. As of today officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant. This ensures that every person gets their proper rights that the constitution ensures. After what happened during the Riley v. California case and how the supreme court created the de facto law that all officers need a warrant to search a phone unless it is urgent no police officer has gone against this law. This is because they know the consequences and it could also tarnish a extremely important case by possibly having to get rid of important information found without a
warrant.
The plaintiff David Leon Riley moved to suppress all evidence the police obtained from his phone. Although this action was denied he insisted that the searches of his phone violated the fourth amendment because they had done it without a warrant and were not justified by any demanding circumstances at the time. The defendant, California testified about the photographs and videos found on the phone as a response to Riley’s argument. This type of case happened another time with Brima Wurie. The case was called Wurie v. United States. What happened to Wurie was very similar to what happened to Riley. Wurie was violated his fourth amendment when a police officer searched and seized his phone without a warrant because he was caught selling drugs. Wurie also lost his case it helped shape today's society along with Riley's case.
Although the police officer violated the fourth amendment Riley was still convicted on all counts of being in connection with an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and attempted murder. The Supreme Court's final decision was that he would receive a sentence of 15 years to life in prison for his actions. The precedent of this case is that police officers are now required to have a search warrant to search a person's cell phone unless it is extremely urgent. Officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant.
The Riley v.
California case along with the Wurie v. United States case both helped change police protocol across the nation so that no one else would have their fourth amendment violated. As of today officers who search without a warrant are required to delete seized data that was collected without a search warrant. This ensures that every person gets their proper rights that the constitution ensures. After what happened during the Riley v. California case and how the supreme court created the de facto law that all officers need a warrant to search a phone unless it is urgent no police officer has gone against this law. This is because they know the consequences and it could also tarnish a extremely important case by possibly having to get rid of important information found without a
warrant.