Case Study : Riley V. California 2014 Wl 2864483 ( 2014 )

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

Based on the 4th Amendment, I agree with the outcome in Supreme Court case Riley v. California No. 13-132 that search warrants are needed to search a cell phone. This case started when David Riley was stopped by police officers on August 22, 2009 in California for a speeding violation. When the police pulled him over, the found unauthorized weapons in his vehicle, leading to the cell phone search. The police repeatedly found terms associated with a local street gang, this lead to his arrest. After searching the cell phone in the police station, the officers found pictures that linked him to a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. Riley was convicted for possession of firearms, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The California court of Appeal affirmed this.

Factual History: In Los Angeles, California during the month of October and year of 2009, Abel Lopez was attacked and robbed by a man with a knife, he later identified as Walter Fernandez. During the confrontation between Lopez and Fernandez, Fernandez informed Lopez the territory in which Lopez was ruled by the “Drifters” After Lopez placed a call to 911, a few minutes after the attack, police and paramedics arrived on the scene. Two Los Angeles police officers, Detective Clark and Officer Cirrito, drove to a nearby alley that was often contained members of the Drifters gang. Here in the ally, a witnesses told them that the suspect was in an apartment in a house located off the

At the time of the first incident involving Riley, he was known to be affiliated with the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego, California. On August 2, 2009, Riley with a few other gang members shot at a man of their opposing gang. Shortly after the scene took place, Riley and his crew then drove off in Riley’s vehicle. After a few days, on August 22, 2009, a police officer had pulled Riley over for expired tags on the current vehicle he was driving. At the same time, after running his license, the officer discovered that Riley was driving on a suspended license. Following the official procedure, Riley’s vehicle was to be impounded. Before his vehicle could be towed away though, the officer must go through and search

Facts: Defendant Wardlow was seen holding a “opague bag”by Officer Nolan. Officer Nolan was driving with fours car, his being the last one. The cars were in a “heavy narcotics trafficking area” examining the area for “drug transactions.” Wardlow saw the police cars and fled the area, even though Wardlow was not doing anything “suspicious.” Officer Nolan seeing the defendant flee, chased and caught the defenfent. When caught officer Nolan did a “protective pat down search for weapons.” Officer Nolan looked at the bag, opened it and found a gun. Wardlow was then arrested by Officer Nolan. Wardlow’s attorney filed a “motion to suppress” the gun, under the action of an “lawful stop and frisk.” The motion was denied by The Illinois Trial Court.

In the case of Stromberg V. California, Yetta Stromberg was arrested for violating a California law enacted in 1919.  The law made it a crime to have a red flag displayed as a sign, symbol, or an emblem of not supporting an organized government, in a public meeting area. Stromberg was arrested when working around San Bernardino, California, at a summer camp for young Communists. The camp was raided on August 3, 1929 by American Legion members who were led by George H. Johnson, the district attorney of San Bernardino. This raid was brought by the Better America Federation of Los Angeles and the Intelligence Bureau of the Los Angeles Police Department.  The raiders seized a red flag and found a cardboard box that contained sheet music and Communist

FACTS OF THE CASE: On April 19, 2002 at around 9pm, three law enforcement officers from the Arizona’s gang task force, was on patrol in a known gang area in Tucson Arizona. They conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle which license plate check revealed the vehicle registration was suspended due to insurance violation. This is consider a civil infraction in the state of Arizona under the law. The vehicle was occupied three times, the driver, the passenger and the back seat passenger Lemon Montrea Johnson, who is the respondent. The police questioned the occupant about gang’s activities, and asked were there any weapon in the vehicle? The occupant replied no, police officer Trevizo’s noticed prior to the stop Johnson who was the back seat passenger continued looking back out the rear view window. Johnson was also wearing a blue bandana which is the Crips gang membership affiliation. At the time of the stop Johnson also had a police scanner inside of his

Riley vs. California is one of the most imporntant supreme court cases during the 21st century. If ruled the in favor of the state of California it would fundmentaly change the fourth amendment officers would be able to search people’s phones with no other evidence other than they thought that it was in best intrest to them to serach it and you could have done nothing about it and that is a clear violation of the protection of unreasonable search and seizure that the fourth amendment gives us. To understand why this case was so important you have to know the backround of the situation. It started in San Diego were a man named David Riley was pulled over because he was driving with a expired license plate. The police officer during that stop found out that Riley was driving while his license was suspended. The

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

Looking at all of these different cases, the same question seemed to be asked. The court needed to decide if the fourth amendment was broken because of the searches the officers did. The courts looked at the vehicle as one part and the luggage, box, or bag separate in each case. In order for the search in California v. Acevedo to be legal the court had to find that the probable cause that they had to search the vehicle, covered every area that the car possessed. While analyzing this case, I thought about what the officers should have done in the situation in order to make their search efficient. If the officers asked Charles if they could search the car and Charles consented to the search this would have helped in court. In my opinion, I feel

In Doucette v. City of Santa Monica, the defendant city enacted a solicitation ordinance, whose purpose was to impose reasonable place and manner limitations on solicitation, in order to protect the general public from abusive solicitations. Doucette, 955 F. Supp. at 1201. The ordinance prohibited “requests made in person seeking an immediate donation of money or other items of value” in areas including bus stops, public transportation vehicles or facilities, public parking lots or structures, outdoor dining areas, and within fifty feet of automated teller machines. Id. Plaintiffs filed suit against the city, alleging that the ordinance violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1198. The city argued that the ordinance "only seek[s] to regulate locations

David Luke Rocco was a gang member who committed multiple crimes, including shooting at an occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a semi-automatic weapon. After being stopped for driving with expired license plates, his cellphone was seized and searched by the police which helped identify and convict him of these crimes. Evidence found included a photo of the plaintiff standing in front of the car he was convicted of shooting and standing near other men who were accused as accomplices to this crime, videos of the plaintiff

I met with Wayne and Frank on June 30 and they provided me with these extensions of the administrative leave of absence for Michael Kuchar for the period May 22 through June 19. They suspect that they are holding back on reinstating him until they employ a new Assistant to the Superintendent at Cumberland who is a retired state trooper. They pointed out that Kuchar has only been receiving his straight salary and has not received his lost overtime but after consideration we decided that the best route to take would be to file a grievance when Kuchar is reinstated rather than do it now and potential encourage the Town not to reinstate him.

Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. However, the Supreme Court observes that in public school setting, students’ protections under the Fourth Amendment are diminished. In Safford v. Redding, a 13-year-old honors student was subjected to a strip search after another student reported that Redding was in possession of forbidden prescription and over-the counter drugs.

Are all crimes solvable? No, not all crimes are solvable Specialists chase down affirmation using techniques. Here and there, regardless, no affirmation exists. In this way, not all wrongdoings are resolvable. Case in point, a theft did by a transient who goes into a house through an open gateway, takes support (burglary), eats it, and after that leaves the domain subtle is a wrongdoing not obligated to be caught on. A robbery put together by a man wearing gloves and whose impressions are washed away by a hard rain before police arrive will be harder to unwind than if it had not rained. Frequently fingerprints are found, however can't be facilitated with any prints on record. Various cases have been deficient with regards to verification, no witnesses, and no sources to give leads.