Riley Vs. 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 Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

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

At Michael C.’s trial his defense argued when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). The trial judge denied the defense’s motion to suppress the evidence; however, an appeal was eventually filed with the California Supreme Court, and the court reversed the initial ruling (Henry-Mays, 2007). The California Supreme Court’s premise behind their ruling was the probation officer served as Michael C.’s guardian, and when he requested to speak with his probation officer that was the same as him invoking his Fifth Amendment rights (Henry-Mays, 2007). Since, we understand why the California Supreme Court reversed the initial ruling, let us analyze the Supreme Court’s decision on this case

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.

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

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?

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 case I’m reviewing is State of Rhode Island vs. Michael Patino. The reason I have chosen this case is because it involves illegal search and seizure of cell phone text messages which violates the 4th amendment. The reason for the violation was because the officer gained evidence without a warrant or permission of the owner of the device.

The case that was chosen by this learner for discussion was Utah v. Strieff. The case deals with Mr. Strieff who was unconstitutionally stopped by the police, which led to a back ground check that showed that there was an outstanding arrest warrant on a minor offense (ACLU, 2016, para. 1). The officer decided to search Mr. Strieff’s vehicle, where the officer discovered drugs, Mr. Strieff was then arrested.

The event took place in Cleveland, Ohio, when Dollree Mapp’s house was entered by police officers, who weren’t carrying any official search warrants. The police believed she was sheltering a suspected bomber; no evidence or bodies were found, but police discovered a chest containing explicit pictures stored within her basement - these pictures violated state law. With this discovery, the police arrested Mapp due to the vulgar images they obtained. Once arrested, Dollree claimed that her fourth amendment of rights had been violated by the police, and ultimately brought her case to the supreme court. The supreme court came to the decision that illegally seized evidence shall not be authorized for use in criminal prosecutions in federal courts and later broadened this ruling to state courts.

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