Riley v. California facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Riley v. CaliforniaU.S. v. Wurie |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 29, 2014 Decided June 25, 2014 |
|
| Full case name | David Leon Riley, Petitioner v. California; United States, Petitioner v. Brima Wurie |
| Docket nos. | 13-132 13-212 |
| Citations | 573 U.S. 373 (more)
134 S. Ct. 2473; 189 L. Ed. 2d 430
|
| Prior history | |
| Holding | |
| Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Riley v. California is a very important Supreme Court case from 2014. The Court decided that police usually cannot search the digital information on your cell phone without a special permission called a warrant. This rule applies even if you have just been arrested.
Before this case, different courts across the country had different ideas about searching cell phones during an arrest. Some courts said police could search phones, while others said they could not. This case helped make the rules clear for everyone.
Contents
What Led to the Case?
Earlier Court Rules on Searches
To understand Riley v. California, it helps to know about an older case called Chimel v. California from 1969. In that case, the Supreme Court said that when police arrest someone, they can search the person's body and the area right around them. This is allowed to keep officers safe and to stop evidence from being destroyed. This rule is known as "search incident to arrest" (SITA).
Over the years, courts have used this SITA rule for different items people had with them when arrested. But when cell phones became common, it was unclear if the rule applied to the digital information inside them. The main question was: Does the Fourth Amendment (which protects people from unreasonable searches) allow police to look through your phone without a warrant?
This big case actually combined two different cases: Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. Both cases asked the same question about cell phone searches.
The Story of David Riley
On August 22, 2009, David Leon Riley was stopped by police because his car's registration tags were expired. The officer also found that Riley was driving with a suspended license. Police policy meant they had to tow his car. During a search of the car, officers found two handguns.
Because of the guns, police arrested Riley. They then searched his cell phone without getting a warrant first. On the phone, they found pictures, contacts, text messages, and videos. This information suggested Riley was part of a gang. Some photos even showed a car linked to a shooting that Riley was suspected of being involved in.
Based on the evidence from his phone, Riley was charged with crimes related to the shooting and gang membership. Riley's lawyer argued that searching his phone without a warrant was against his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the trial court allowed the phone evidence to be used. Riley was found guilty.
Why the Case Went to the Supreme Court
Riley's case went up to the California Court of Appeal. That court said the search was allowed because of a recent California Supreme Court decision called People v. Diaz. In Diaz, the court had said that police could do a full search of a cell phone if it was found near someone at the time of their arrest. This was allowed even if the search happened later at a different place.
Riley's lawyer then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. The Supreme Court decided to hear Riley v. California along with another similar case, United States v. Wurie, to settle the question once and for all.
The Supreme Court's Review
When the cases came before the Supreme Court, David Riley's lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, argued his side. Fisher explained that searching a smartphone without a warrant was a "very, very profound problem." He compared it to police being able to search "the private papers and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody's house."
Fisher warned the justices that allowing such searches could "open up every American's entire life to the police department." He stressed that this information could be kept "forever" by the police.
The Court's Decision
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the main opinion for the Supreme Court. All nine justices agreed that a warrant is generally needed to search a cell phone during an arrest.
Chief Justice Roberts explained that a cell phone is different from other items police might search during an arrest. He said:
- Digital information on a phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm an officer.
- It cannot be used to help someone escape.
- Once police have the phone and know it's not a physical threat, the data inside it cannot hurt anyone.
Roberts also talked about the idea that evidence on a phone could be destroyed, for example, by someone wiping the phone remotely or by the phone's security features. But he said that this is part of how phones work, not necessarily an active attempt to hide evidence. He also noted that police might not have enough time to search a phone before it locks itself.
Most importantly, Chief Justice Roberts highlighted how much personal information cell phones hold: "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans 'the privacies of life'." He added that just because technology lets us carry so much information in our hands, it doesn't mean that information deserves less protection.
What Justice Alito Thought
Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the main decision but also wrote his own opinion. He agreed that police should not be able to search cell phones without a warrant. He pointed out that many cell phones today store a huge amount of personal information, much more than anyone would carry in paper form.
However, Justice Alito also worried that the Court's decision might create some confusing situations. For example, he noted that police can usually look through a wallet without a warrant, but under the new rule, they cannot look through a cell phone. He suggested that new laws might be needed to help balance police needs with privacy rights in the digital age.
