Riley V. California Case

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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

Before his trial he attempted to remove all incriminating evidence from his cell phone. Riley argued against the police evidence stating that the searches of his cell phone were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment people should be free from unreasonable searches unless probable cause is found. He believed the police’s lack of a warrant before conducting their searches was a valid defense for the charges against him. Riley’s claim was stricken down by the trial court. During the trial police officers presented the previously collected photographs and videos from Riley’s phone. Videos and photographs from the cell phone attempted to prove that Riley was member of the “Bloods”, that he was involved with the shooting, and that the shooting was motivated by his gang affiliation. He was convicted on all three counts with an additional 15 years to life in prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed using the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Diaz as support. In People v. Diaz the ruling was that a warrantless search of cell phones is acceptable by the Fourth Amendment as long as the phone was directly in possession of the arrestee. Riley requested an appeal by the California Supreme Court but was denied the review.

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

Privacy, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is the quality or condition of being secluded from the presence or view of others, and the state of being free from public attention or unsanctioned intrusion. Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States does not expressly protect a person 's right to privacy; there are however some provisions to privacy within the Bill of Right and the Amendments to the Constitution. Among them are the first amendment, that ensures the privacy or belief, the third amendment, that ensures the privacy of home, and the fourth amendment, that ensures the privacy of person and possession.

I choose the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby because initially it reminded me of the movie Burlesque. In the movie, a man named Marcus did not want the view of his penthouse to be ruined by a skyscraper being built right next to the window. So, instead of buying the land property, he bought the air rights. Owning these air rights means that he owned the air above the surface level. This is similar to this Supreme Court case because Lee Causby was suing for the disturbance being caused planes that was happening above his property, and common law doctrine said that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe. Lee Causby “owned a dwelling and a chicken farm near a municipal airport. The safe path of glide to one of the

Over the years, the United States has made advancements towards a society in which gender no longer acts as a deciding factor in regards to societal and legal rights. The stance of women today differs greatly from the position they held 250 or even 50 years ago. Even though women have advanced via law reforms and changing social perspective, they still remain unrepresented and uninvolved in the law, which leads to a lack of overall equality in our legal system and society.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

Issue: Whether respondent’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he was subjected to a search of his person, albeit under probable cause, without a warrant and prior to a formal arrest.

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

Since its inception, the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution have been expanding and evolving because of new technology. The Fourth Amendment generally protects us all from “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government (Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure, n.d., p. 1199). Court cases such as Katz v. United States and Riley v. California highlight how new technology can lead to decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States that alter the protections provided by this amendment (Hall, 2015). In 1968, the Supreme Court decision in Katz v. United States fundamentally changed the measure used to judge whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurs due to new technology being utilized by law enforcement. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in the case of Riley v. California is a more relatable case, since it involves technology that the vast majority of us use everyday (Savage, 2014). This case changed the way law enforcement is able to legally search the cellphone of an arrestee, by strengthening the arrestee’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

The precise definition for the term “search” does not exist under current federal law. “The supreme court first defined a search in terms of whether a physical invasion occurred in a constitutionally protected area.” Does the warrantless search and seizure of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment? The 4th amendment is an important bill of right for citizens but unfortunately its drawback is prominent in that it promotes crime, puts society’s safety at risk and makes police job complicated at the expense of extreme privacy.

1. The defendant' phone was not lawfully searched as stated in “The Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.” (People v. Bryant, Smith, Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 365.) The Fourth Amendment is keep things fair and appropriate. “Our cases have determined that '[w]here a search is undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of wrong doing, . Reasonableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant.' “ (Riley, supra, 573 U.S. at. p._[134 S.Ct at. p. 2484], quoting Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995) 515 U.S. 646, 653.)

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in