Riley Vs California Case Study

863 Words4 Pages

In the Riley v. California, there are two cases. In the first case, the defendant is David Riley. Riley was stopped by police due to the traffic violation. Then, police also find that Riley’s license had been suspended. Police impounded his car and search in the car. They find the hidden firearms and arrest Riley. One officer search for the Riley incident and find something relate to the “Blood” street gang. They also find a smart phone which has lots of function and includes many information from Riley. In the phone, there are also some information relate to the “Blood” street gang. Then, a detective specializing in gangs further survey this incident. Finally, Riley was charged, in connection with the earlier shoot.
In the second case, the …show more content…

He thought the evidence found from his apartment is the result of the unconstitutional search of his phone. The District Court denied his argument. Wurie was convicted three counts and sentenced 262 months in prison. In both case, the key problem is the search of phone. As a personal equipment, it has lots of privacy, and does the police officers have rights to search the phone without warrant. In Riley’s case, the phone is a smart phone and has lots of function include the modification of information in the long range. This is could eliminate the evidence. The police officers could search the smart phone to prevent. In Wurie’s case, compare smart phone, the flip phone has the less function and information. These function and information does not have enough effect to the law enforcement interests.
In Riley’s case, the California Court of Appeal accept the case. The court maintained the original court’s decision. The reason is in the conduction that phone related to arrestee's person immediately, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of phone data incident to an arrest. In Wurie’s case. A divided panel of the First Circuit reversed the original sentence of Wurie’s suppress and vacated Wurie's convictions for possession with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm as a

Open Document