Supreme Court Case: Riley Vs. California

Riley vs. California is a recent court case that has redefined cell phone privacy in criminal cases. Decided by the Supreme Court in 2014, it states that cell phones may not be searched without a warrant. Because this decision protects the privacy of arrestees, the judicial process, the trustworthiness of police officers, and does not hinder pending investigations, I support the Supreme Court’s decision.
In 2013, David Riley was pulled over for a traffic stop and subsequently arrested for weapons charges. The officer recovered a cellphone, and upon accessing information stored inside, noticed information regarding a gang. At the station several hours later, detectives further searched Riley’s phone and connected him to a shooting that had occurred

Const. amend. IV). While a previous case, United States v. Robinson, holds that an officer may subject the arrested to a warrantless search if suspecting a danger or threat, digital information on a cell phone cannot directly cause physical harm. Additionally, cell phones contain massive amounts of information regarding a person’s life, including photographs, documents, personal details, and so forth. Though an arrestee has fewer privacy rights, going through his or her cell phone is “‘materially indistinguishable’ from searching physical items” (“Riley vs. California”, 2014). Finally, although information regarding a case can be erased remotely from a cell phone’s memory, the threat (in this particular case) was not prevalent and could therefore be ignored. The Supreme Court’s conclusion can be summarized in Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement: the “answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is . . . simple — get a warrant” (“Riley vs. California,