Cell Phones And The Bill Of Rights

As technology continues to advance, digital data and personal privacy have become even more crucial to protect. Mobile phones operate similar to small computers and have become an integral part of the way people communicate and live their lives and can contain a digital record of virtually every aspect of a person’s life. The Fourth amendment was added to United States Constitution in December 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. As stated by Swidle, the Fourth Amendment specifically provides: “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” (Swidle, 2013).

The legal issue in the article is that David Riley was pulled over by officers for a traffic violation, which led to his arrest for possession of firearms related charges.

Officers searching incident to arrest, seized Riley’s cell phone uncovering evidence of gang activity and subsequently ties to a gang related shooting. Additionally, Brima Wurie was arrested when officers observed him consummating an apparent drug deal. Officers seized Wurie’s cell phone incident to arrest at which time they observed several missed calls from the same number and wrote down the caller’s number. Subsequently this led to a drug dealers bonanza. Consequently, the main legal issue in the article is whether warrantless law enforcement searching of cell phones incident to arrest violates the Fourth Amendment rights (Harvard,

2014).
This article covers the history of the case as well as the final judgement of the Supreme Court reversing the prior ruling and alternative precedencies that have been set to clarify some aspects of the Fourth Amendment for the new digital age.
Article Summary
In a recent law case study article published by Harvard Law Review, Criminal Procedure, dated November 10, 2014 the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure searching cell phones incident to arrest consists of the consolidated appeals of two cases: Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. Both cases hold the same constitutional question as to whether the government (police) can search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual under arrest without a warrant. The Supreme Court was faced with determining how to apply the “search incident to arrest” doctrine to smart phones and cell phones when seized from an arrestee. The court relied on the reasonableness balancing test of warrantless searches of a mobile phone which essentially considered the privacy interests of arrestee’s (Harvard, 2014).
In the Riley case, a San Diego Police officer’s search incident to arrest of David Riley discovered firearms along with evidence of gang affiliations which aroused suspicions. Without a warrant, the police seized and searched Riley’s smart phone. At the police station, a more comprehensive search of Riley’s phone uncovered additional evidence of gang connections which ultimately placed Riley at the scene of a shooting weeks prior to his arrest. Riley was convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and attempted murder based on evidence obtained through his smart phone (Harvard, 2014).
In the Wurie case, officers observed Brima Wurie making an apparent drug deal outside a convenience store. Officers search incident to arrest of Wurie seized a flip phone where they noticed several missed calls from the same number. Without a warrant, officers tracked down the number which led them to an apartment building. Officers secured a search warrant for the apartment and discovered crack cocaine, a firearm, other paraphernalia and cash. Wurie was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and felony possession of a firearm and ammunition (Harvard, 2014).
Both cases moved to suppress the cell phone evidence obtained through the incident to arrest searches by stating it was an unconstitutional search; however both trial courts denied the motions. The California Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in the Riley case; however, the First Circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress in the Wuire case and vacated his conviction. The theory of the prosecution in both cases was that the search incident to arrest exception to the requirement of a search warrant made the warrantless search of a cell phone seized from the defendant’s person, incident to his arrest, categorically “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.