Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Case 13.1
RILEY V. CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court of the United States
134 S. Ct. 2473; 189 L.Ed.2d 430; 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4497 [April 29, 2014]
FACTS:
Petitioner David Riley was stopped by a police officer for driving with expired registration tags.
The officer impounded Riley’s car, pursuant to department policy, and another officer conducted
an inventory search of the car.
Riley was arrested for possession of concealed and loaded firearms when the search turned up two
handguns under the car’s hood.
An office searched Riley and found items associated with the “Bloods” street gang.
The officer also seized a cell phone from Riley’s pants pocket. The phone was a “smart phone,” a
cell phone with a broad range of other functions based on advanced competing capability, large
storage capacity, and Internet connectivity.
The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed that some words (presumably in text
messages or a contacts list) were preceded by the letters “CK” – a label believed to stand for “Crip
Killers,” a slang term for members of the Bloods gang.
At the police station, about 2 hours after the arrest, a detective went through Riley’s phones
looking for evidence and found photographs of Riley standing in front of a car they suspected was
involved in a recent robbery.
Riley was ultimately charged, in connection with the earlier shooting, with firing at an occupied
vehicle, assault with semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder.
Prior to trial, Riley moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his cell phone
alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The trial court rejected that argument, and Riley was convicted on all three counts and received an
enhanced sentence of 15 years to life in prison.
PROCEDURE: The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the California Court of Appeals
affirmed this decision.
ISSUE: Can the police, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an
individual who has been arrested?
RULE: “The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone
seized from an individual who has been arrested.”
REASONING:
1. Information on a cell phone is not immune from search; rather a warrant is generally required
arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidence of a crime.
3. Officers can examine the phones’ physical aspects to insure that the phones will not be used as
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Where a search is
undertaken by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of wrong-doing, reasonableness
generally requires the obtaining of a judicial warrant.
Such a warrant ensures that the inferences to support a search are drawn by a neutral and
