Street Law Case Summary

Riley v. California
Argued: April 29, 2014
Decided: June 25, 2014
Background
The Fourth Amendment allows searches that are reasonable and prohibits
those that are unreasonable. A search occurs when the government looks
for anything in an area where a person has an expectation of privacy that
society considers reasonable.
Officers are generally required to have both probable cause and a warrant
to search a person or his property. There are, however, a number of
exceptions to this warrant requirement. One of the times when an officer
does not need a warrant is when performing a search incident to arrest, a
search of someone performed at the time of a lawful arrest. Under this
exception to the warrant requirement, the officer can search the person
arrested as well as the area within his immediate control. These searches
are allowed to protect the safety of the officer and to keep any evidence
related to the crime from being destroyed. In all warrantless searches, the
courts tries to determine what is reasonable by balancing the
governments legitimate interests with the protection of peoples privacy.
This case addresses whether searching the smart phone of someone placed
under arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.
Facts
David Riley was pulled over by police for driving with expired tags on his
car. The police then discovered that his license was expired, so they
impounded Rileys car. When police impound a car, they routinely search it,
and they found two firearms when they searched Rileys vehicle. The
officers arrested Riley for the concealed weapons. When they arrested him,
they took away his smartphone.
One officer first searched the text messages on his smartphone and found
evidence that he may have been part of a gang. Once they returned to the
police station, two hours later, a detective looked through the contacts,
photos, and videos. A photograph linked Riley to a car used in an earlier
gang shooting. Rileys phone records also placed him at the scene of the
shooting. The police never got a warrant for these searches.
Riley was charged in the shooting. During his trial, his lawyer asked that
the evidence from his smartphone be dismissed because it was obtained
through an illegal search without a warrant. The California Court of Appeals
ruled the search was valid. Riley appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue
2014 Street Law, Inc.

Riley v. California
Does a warrantless search of a suspects smartphone incident to an arrest
of the suspect violate the Fourth Amendment?

2014 Street Law, Inc.

Riley v. California

Constitutional Amendment and Precedents

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Chimel v. California (1969)
Officers came to Chimels home to arrest him for a burglary. After
they arrested Chimel they asked to search his homethey didnt have
a search warrant for his house. Chimel refused, but the officers
searched his house anyway. The officers searched the entire home,
attic, and even looked in drawers. The Court ruled that this search
violated Chimels Fourth Amendment rights. They said an officer could
only search the area within an arrestees immediate control if the
officers safety was at risk or the arrestee could destroy evidence
relating to his arrest. A search of Chimels entire home went beyond
the area that was within Chimels immediate control.
United States v. Robinson (1973)
Officers pulled over and arrested Robinson for driving with a revoked
license. Robinson was not free to leave, so he was considered to be
under custodial arrest. Officers frisked Robinson and felt a bulge in
Robinsons coat. They found this was a cigarette pack. They opened it
and it contained heroin. The Court ruled that when a suspect is placed
under custodial arrest, even for a minor traffic infraction, police are
not limited to only searching for weapons. The Court decided this is
an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and it is
reasonable.
Arizona v. Gant (2008)
Gant was placed under arrest for driving with a suspended license.
While Gant was handcuffed and locked in a patrol car, police searched
his vehicle and found cocaine in the backseat. The Court ruled the
search was unconstitutional because there was no risk of Gant
reaching into the vehicle for a weapon or to destroy evidence, and it
was unreasonable to search for evidence unrelated to the crime of
arrest.
Arguments for Riley
This is not a valid search incident to arrest because the search was
not necessary for officer safety or for evidence protection. If police
2014 Street Law, Inc.

Riley v. California
think the suspect might remotely wipe data from the phone, the police
can turn off the phone, place it in a container that blocks cellular
signals, or make a backup copy of the data until they get a warrant.
The search was unreasonable because it looked at too much personal
information on the phone. Smartphones have a large amount of
private information about peoples livesfar more information than
people could have carried with them in the past.
Making a rule that limits officers who want to search a smartphone to
looking only for information relevant to the crime is not enough. It
would be too easy for an officer to find a reason to justify searching
further based on minor but suspicious details like phone contacts.
The Founders drafted the Fourth Amendment to protect against
unlimited searches by the government because the British would
routinely search the homes and belongings of people. Although
searching a smartphone is a new concept, the core interest of privacy
from government intrusion is the same.
The search of the phone at the station took place too long after the
arrest and not close enough to the arrest location. Two hours after the
arrest, the concerns for officer safety and evidence destruction were
minimal. Without these concerns, the search is unjustified.
Arguments for California
This was a valid search incident to arrest because the law allows
police to search objects found in the possession of a suspect placed
under arrest. These searches are allowed for public safety, officer
safety, and preventing evidence destruction.
The officers have reasonable concerns to justify searching the phones.
By searching the phone before obtaining a warrant they are able to
find safety threats, identify the suspect and his associates, and find
evidence related to the crime that could be erased.
Although technology is changing, cell phones should not have a
special exception. The information on phones is information that could
have been found on paper the suspect carried before cell phones
existed. If the suspect carried an agenda book or a contact book, the
police would be able to search those. Since this is information police
would normally be allowed to search, they should not be prevented
just because phones hold larger amounts.
The search was not too remote in time or place. Since they could have
lawfully seized and searched the phone for evidence at the time of
arrest, the officers should still be able to search the phone for

2014 Street Law, Inc.

Riley v. California
evidence a short while later. A break in time does not change the
contents of the phone or the value of its information.
Police have an ongoing need to prevent evidence destruction. First,
the phone could go into lock mode before police can get a warrant,
which would make searching the phone much harder once they have a
warrant. Second, the data on the phone was still at risk of being
destroyed by remote digital wiping.
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled for Riley unanimously. Chief Justice Roberts wrote
the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito wrote a decision concurring in the
judgment.
Majority
The Court ruled that a warrantless search of data on an arrestees cell
phone is generally unconstitutional. The Court decided that the warrant
exception for officer safety does not apply to the data on a cell phone. The
data itself cannot be used as a weapon or used for the arrestee to escape.
The Court was also not persuaded by Californias arguments about the
possible destruction of evidence. The justices said there are better ways to
prevent losing the data than searching the phone without a warrant, and
said that remote wiping of cell phone data is not a common problem. The
Court believed people have very important privacy interests in their cell
phones, which store much more information than a person could normally
carry with them. That information can have more details than even a diary
the justices noted that a cell phones can function as cameras, video
players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums,
televisions, maps, or newspapers
The police may still seize (take away) a cell phone when they arrest
someone, but they cannot search the digital contents of the phone without a
warrant. The Court decided that police may only search data on a cell phone
without a warrant when there is an ongoing emergency (called an exigent
circumstance).

2014 Street Law, Inc.