Riley v. California
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Dedan Kimathi University of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by willicharles4
1
Module title
Module code
Banner ID
Coursework title
Date of submission
2
Riley V. California
Riley was convicted of a shooting offense using an evidence that was seized from Riley’s
cell phone, though Riley filed a motion to suppress that evidence in courts the motion was
denied. His appeal in the state court citing violation of fourth amendment was also overruled.
Riley and Wurie petitioned the Supreme Court together in a consolidated case for the
determination of seizure of evidence from cellphones incident to the arrest
1
. The Supreme Court
over turned the ruling of the lower courts and explained that government may not conduct a
warrantless search on electronics especially cellphones after an arrest when there is no exigent
circumstances. The underlying circumstance is that such kid of evidence gathered from such
sources are premised from illegal searchers due to lack of a warrant to search them and they pose
no danger to the arresting officer
The implications of the case
The case is established grounds in which arresting officers are allowed to search phones
for evidence. It establishes that there must be a warrant for search as seizure of cell phone
contents in a case where the cell phones if seized after and arrest without exigent circumstances.
It reinforces the fourth amendment on search and seizure of evidence. It requires officers to have
a warrant before conducting a search of the cell phone contents that is seized incident to arrest in
order to prevent the violation of the fourth amendment
2
.
The case was a landmark ruling that led to the release of individual for illegal search and
seizure which implied that the evidence adduced before the courts were obtained illegally. It was
significant in stopping illegal search and seizure in continued violation of the fourth amendment
1
Blizard, Isabella. "Phone Sweet Phone: The Future of the Private Search Doctrine Following Riley v. California."
2
Janes, Jared. "The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley v. California on Border Law
Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic Devices
3
rights. It reinforced the fourth amendment covering contents in cell phones and other electronic
communication gadgets.
Without the ruling, many arresting officers would be carrying our illegal searches and
seizure of electronic gadgets in search of evidence without seeking for a warrant hence violating
the fourth amendment. The case put a stop to some of illegal searchers and seizure.
References
Blizard, Isabella. "Phone Sweet Phone: The Future of the Private Search Doctrine Following
Riley v. California."
U. Pac. L. Rev.
49 (2017): 207.
Janes, Jared. "The Border Search Doctrine in the Digital Age: Implications of Riley v. California
on Border Law Enforcement's Authority for Warrantless Searches of Electronic
Devices."
Rev. Litig.
35 (2016): 71.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help