Riley V. California Case Study

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.

The defense has just discovered a witness whose statement is favourable to their case 45 days prior to the scheduled beginning of the trial. While it is required by law in the State of California to declare any reasonably anticipated witnesses and turn over statements they have made, there would be no technical basis for objection if the defense were to withhold this information and call the witness unexpectedly on the day of the trial. Because it can be argued that the defense decided the day of to call the witness, there will be no official complaint. However, there are important moral ramifications in this situation, as well as creating doubt as to the defense’s credibility.

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

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.

What is more, the exclusionary rule provides that the extra evidence obtained because of unreasonable search or seizure will not be used in a court of law, as it will be considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.” In essence, the exclusionary rule excludes any evidence collected out of unlawful searches. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may infringe on one his right to privacy by obtaining information from the individual his computer, as this will amount to unreasonable search and disrespect to the individual his privacy rights. As such, it is unreasonable for the government agencies such as the Department of Justice to obtain information from Google, Yahoo, Facebook, or any other online service provide, as this may be presumed by a court of law as unlawful and unreasonable search that amounts to infringement on one’s privacy rights (O 'Brien and Michael, pg. 1889).

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

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.

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

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

ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA (1947) FACTS: Like the federal constitution, the California constitution affords a criminal defendant protection against self-incrimination, However, a California law permits the prosecutor to comment on the failure of a criminal defendant to testify in his own defense. California law also forbids the prosecutor to comment on a criminal defendant’s previous convictions unless they come up on cross examination of the defendant. A result Adamson was placed in the position of taking the stand in his own defense and having his previous convictions revealed to the jury or refusing to take the stand and letting the prosecutor draw negative inferences from his failure to do so. Adamson argues that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege

The FISC-issued warrants do not name a person as a suspect, they name a category. For example, it could be customers of Verizon, which includes 115 million people, it could be telephones and computers located at 721-725 Fifth Ave. in New York; that’s Trump Tower. It could be all electronic devices in the 10036 ZIP code: that’s midtown Manhattan. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the number of warrants issued by the court has more than doubled. In 2016, the Department of Justice has shown that the 1,457 requests made to the FISA court in 2015 for permission to conduct the electronic surveillance, and one was withdrawn by the court. The FISC did not deny any applications in a whole or in part.

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

I was reading the paper back in September and came across the article “Microsoft Tests Power Of Search Warrants” by Joe Palazzolo, it was about how the United States Government acquired a search warrant for data the Microsoft had for a customer. This would usually be acceptable, besides the fact that this time the data was being stored in Ireland and since it is being held in a different, international area, the data is protected by the Irish and European privacy laws (Palazzolo). The U.S. government needs the information for a drug-trafficking investigation and is using the argument that since Microsoft has access to the information and they are located in the United States. One court had already decided to hold Microsoft in contempt of court, but they have appealed the

They also have the right to track down the hacker who did it, just like they can track down someone who committed a physical crime. All of these situations are ones in which the US government is not encroaching on any one's privacy without reason, and therefore, is in the right if they do something about it. However, they do not have a right to track or view an individual's personal communication or search history, unless there is a serious suspicion of this person that warrants checking a check of that information. It is just like any other situation involving a search of private property, such as the necessity to obtain a search warrant to search someone's home, or the need to actually observe an individual doing something suspicious in order to search their vehicle. In a situation where an individual has caused a rightful suspicion of his online content, the government does have a right to search their history or communications in order to find pertinent information to the case being made against the