David this case, the court ruled that if

Leon Riley belonged to the Lincoln Park gang of San Diego, California. On
August 2, 2009, he and others opened fire on a rival gang member driving past
them. The shooters then got into Riley’s car and drove away. On August 22, 2009,
the Police pulled Riley over driving a different car. His car had an expired
license registration tags. Due to his license being suspended. The police had
the car impounded. Before a car is impounded, police are required to perform an
inventory search to confirm that the vehicle has all its components at the time
of seizure, to protect against liability claims in the future, and to discover
hidden contraband. While search the vehicle, police located two guns and
subsequently arrested Riley for possession of the firearms. Riley had his cell
phone in his pocket when he was arrested, so a gang unit detective analyzed files
on his phone. Seeing that Riley was making gang signs and other gang related
activity. Riley was subsequently tied to the shooting on August 2 via ballistics
tests, and separate charges were brought to include shooting at an occupied
vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a semi-auto firearm. Riley was convicted
and the California Court of appeal affirmed the judgement. The case was granted
a certiorari and was going to be heard by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John
Roberts was also going to be involved. They ruled that searching the contents
of a cell phone without a warrant is unconstitutional.

            This case related back to Chimel v.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Califfornia (1969). In this case, the court ruled that if the police arrest
someone, they have the right to search the body of the person without a warrant
in “the area into which he might reach” in order to protect physical evidence
and for the safety of the officers. This was all good until cell phones came
into play. Courts were unsure about what to do with cases when it came to the
digital contents search for an arrest. Lower courts were indifferent on whether
or not the 4th amendment permitted offices to search the contents of
a cell phone without a warrant. Cell phones were becoming very powerful and
held important information. It was time for an in-depth review and a serious
decision.  Riley moved to suppress the
evidence that police obtained from his cell phone, but the motion was denied.

However, the California Supreme Court used a case called People v. Diaz as a precedent
that granted the approval of a warrantless search of cell phone data incident
to arrest.

            Of course, the main issue in the
case was whether or not the government may conduct a warrantless search on a
cell phone after the arrest. The police officer has to think safety first to
protect himself. He must search the pockets and bags of the person whom they
arrest without the warrant. Cell phones have so much personal information and don’t
have a threat as a weapon. Cell phones having all this information was basically
like having hard evidence right in front of them. The law officials were afraid
they could lose this information by wiping it or a data encryption when the
phone is locked.  They decided it was justifiable
and necessary to explore and obtain this information on the spot.

            The United States Supreme Court
decided that the government must obtain a warrant before conducting a search of
contents on a cell phone in a arrest. It would violate the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts reached the
conclusion by noting “digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used
as a weapon to harm an officer.” And the officers are only conducting this
search for safety in the first place. However, the arresting officers are
allowed to examine the physical aspects of the phone but once there are no
threats to safety there is nothing else they can do.  Roberts made an argument that cell phones
differ from any other objects as it contains one’s whole life and personal
information. Our founding fathers fought to protect our personal life and privacy.

            This is a case that hit hard in
terms to the 4th amendment and a person’s private information. It
was concluded that the arresting officers did draw the line when searching the
phone on the spot. It was unconstitutional and a violation of a person’s
privacy. This issue needed to be resolved. There are great arguments for both
sides and a lot of courts were indifferent on the subject. Some thought that
when someone is being arrested for a crime that the arresting officers has all
the rights to search any information he possibly can on the person as it could
help a lot with the arrest. On the other side Chief Justice John Roberts knew
that there was a line to be drawn when it came to search physical evidence and someone’s
whole life on a cell phone. I agree with Chief Justice John Roberts on this
notion. A lot of people have their whole entire life information stored on
their cell phones. Ranging from locations, contacts, interests, messages,
photos and many other things. I think a cell phone goes right in with the 4th
amendment and should be treated the same as houses, papers and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures. Phones are basically hand-held computers
and contain all the safe information of one. I think it is morally right to get
the warrant and do the search before simply invading someone’s privacy on spot
like that. Very rarely will someone get all the data wiped before you can get a