Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag. Then, the officer proceeded to impound Riley’s car because he was driving with a suspended license. To protect themselves against liability claims, the police are required to make a …show more content…
The writ questioned “Whether or under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual’s cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest”, SCOTUSblog.com; and it was granted on January 17, 2014 in part because Federal and State Courts had openly divided opinions over this issue. Riley v. California was argued on April 29, 2014 and a decision was made on June 25, 2014. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. declared by a unanimous decision that a warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The court stated that the warrantless search exception (SITA) does not apply to this case because digital data store in an electronic device cannot be used as a weapon to harm officers. Although, the court recognizes that possible evidence stored on a cell phone may be wiped remotely, it also acknowledges that it could be avoided by disconnecting the cell phone from the network and placing it in a Faraday bag. Roberts court reach a majority decision on Riley v. California of 9 to 0 vote in favor of the …show more content…
On the other hand, 67% of the surveyed people think that police should not be allowed to search through a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant. I believe that public opinion has a strong effect on the decision-making process of our courts. Professor Barry Friedman of New York University School of Law thinks that “we the people” influence the decision of the U.S Supreme Courts. So, Prof. Friedman states that “the Justices will bend to the will of the people because the Courts requires public support to remain an efficacious branch of government”. However, political scientists are not so sure that public opinion has a direct influence on courts; nor they have found concrete evidence that support this
Although Riley 's driver 's license was suspended, police policy required that the car be impounded.
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed, with their unanimous
In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical
The United States supreme court believed so and voted so unanimously. Seeing as all judges voted in favor of Riley, their political skew is transparent in a sense. Although apparent in their opinions, their political ideologies all supported Riley’s case. Conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ opinion was featured as the one representative of the court’s decision. The opinion provided that warrantless search and seizure was a circumstantial occurrence and was only to be used in cases where officer or civilian lives were endangered and/or where preserving evidence was an issue.
Mapp v. Ohio Throughout the last 70 years, there have been many cases that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided upon leading to many advancements in the U.S. Constitution. Many of the cases have created laws that we still use today. In the case I chose, Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials, four little pamphlets, a couple of photos, and a little pencil doodle, after an illegal police search of her home for a suspected bomber. No suspect was found, but she was arrested.
A phone with bank information can be a top prize for a treacherous police officer. They can go to your home, text contacts, even steal identities if you put enough information on alleged “secure” personal devices. Phone snooping violates the 4th amendment, which says "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. When Gregory Diaz, a California resident who was seen participating a drug deal, was ordered to hand over his phone to an officer without a warrant, it violated the amendment. The Supreme Court, when notified about the case, decided that Diaz’s case was an exception to the 200 y/o rule.
Citation: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Facts: The Free Speech Coalition which is a non-profit trade association of the pornography and adult entertainment industry in the United States filed suit, against the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). The child pornography prevention act prohibits and sets penalties for activities such as depicting any visual image of the sexual abuse of minors. This includes pictures, video, and even modified images with the likeness or appearance of a minor engaging in a sexual act. The Promotion, advertisement, and distribution of such works are also prohibited and have consequences.
Supreme Court, there are many examples that shows his true beliefs towards the use of the original meaning of the Constitution. His dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), he voted to hold California’s medical marijuana laws. Also his opinion towards Hillside Dairy V. Lyons (2003) upholding economic protection, rather than siding with free market. (Conwell Law). Another opinion that he bestowed his conservative values was through Federal Communications Commission V. Fox (2009) that the protection under the First Amendment should cover Broadcast Speech, and his view on Anti-abortion.
According to the Fourth Amendment, people have the right to be secure in their private property, and may only be searched with probable cause. However, in a recent case, this right was violated by the government. An Oregon citizen, with the initials of DLK, was suspected of growing marijuana in his home. The federal government used a thermal imager to scan his home, and were later given a warrant to physically search his home. However, many remain divided over whether or not this scan was constitutional, as there was no warrant at the time of the scan.
Who voted on what is a question that is believed by some should be asked more often than not and the easiest way to resolve that issue is to post the court rulings. “Least four justices have required the court to do this fall in a case involving the University of Texas? Or would the court’s time have been better spent interjecting itself into the debate in Silicon Valley (and elsewhere) concerning the extent of copyright protection for computer software, as the court declined to do on the same day it granted review in the case from
The public can influence a judge's ruling before ultimately backtracking. There have been many times where people can influence the result of a court case. Throughout time, it has been shown the court of law will have more impact than the court of public opinion. However, as shown through Inherit the Wind and modern day events, the court of public opinion could still influence the final say. The court of law has more impact on the outcome of court cases because they have more power over the public.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.