Riley V. California Case Study

The writ questioned “Whether or under what circumstances the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual’s cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest”, SCOTUSblog.com; and it was granted on January 17, 2014 in part because Federal and State Courts had openly divided opinions over this issue. Riley v. California was argued on April 29, 2014 and a decision was made on June 25, 2014. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. declared by a unanimous decision that a warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. The court stated that the warrantless search exception (SITA) does not apply to this case because digital data store in an electronic device cannot be used as a weapon to harm officers. Although, the court recognizes that possible evidence stored on a cell phone may be wiped remotely, it also acknowledges that it could be avoided by disconnecting the cell phone from the network and placing it in a Faraday bag.

Cedar Rapids v. Garrett F. Garret F., was a quadriplegic who was ventilator-dependent due to his spinal column being severed in a severe motorcycle accident when he was 4 years old. During the school day, he required a personal attendant within hearing distance to see to his health care needs. He required urinary bladder catheterization, suctioning of his tracheostomy, observation for respiratory distress, and other assistance. He attended regular classes in a typical school program and was successful academically.

The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood.

Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.

Switching vehicles, the shooters got into Riley’s car and drove away. Through evidence on his phone, Riley was subsequently tied to the August 2nd shooting. Separate charges were brought, including shooting at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semi-automatic, and attempted murder. In the lower courts, David Leon Riley made a motion to suppress the evidence regarding his gang affiliation that had been found in the search of his cell phone.

Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.

A phone with bank information can be a top prize for a treacherous police officer. They can go to your home, text contacts, even steal identities if you put enough information on alleged “secure” personal devices. Phone snooping violates the 4th amendment, which says "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. When Gregory Diaz, a California resident who was seen participating a drug deal, was ordered to hand over his phone to an officer without a warrant, it violated the amendment. The Supreme Court, when notified about the case, decided that Diaz’s case was an exception to the 200 y/o rule.

Diaz that the police are not required to have a warrant in order to search the information on someone’s phone at the time of their arrest. In this case checking Diaz’s phone was lawful because it occurred during a search incident to arrest. A search incident to a lawful arrest allows police to perform a warrantless search of an arrested person in the interest of officer safety, destruction of evidence and prevention of escape. Based on this ruling, the digital contents of a cell phone do not threaten the safety of police officers. It makes sense for officers to secure the phone to make sure there is no potential harm, but data on the phone cannot harm anybody.

I still don’t agree to this because with the 4th amendment we have the right to privacy from the government, and that means all personal property can not get searched without the presence of a warrant. Also I love having my freedom with my phone and knowing that the government can check on anyone whenever they feel like you are a little weird so they check your personal

Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to

The side of this debate that supports less strict criteria for warrantless search of the digital information of cell phones is law enforcement, which is made up of various entities that track American citizen’s data to keep the country safe. Government lawyers and supports of warrantless cell phone searches argue that “searching a cell phone is no different than search other items commonly found on a person at the time of arrest.” In addition, they point out that prohibiting these searches would hurt prosecutors’ chances of proving guilt in drug trafficking cases because of the widespread use of cell phones by drug dealers in order to move their products. At surface level it seems that the Court has just required police to get warrants before checking cell phones, but the ruling could lead to questions about the NSA’s capacity to conduct warrantless search on American’s data. Government institutions, primarily the NSA, have used “section 215 of the Patriot Act” to analyze American’s phone data, but this ruling could show that the Court is attempting to better protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by stopping

[The government] will be enabled to expose a jury to the most intimate occurrences of the home .” Justice Brandeis later went on to write an article called “The Right to Privacy” in which he asserted that “the right to be let alone” was integral to the American citizen’s quality of life . The argument that Brandeis makes against technological surveillance of citizens follows a certain line of logic: “property” encompasses both physical and intangible possessions, in the same way that other protections are not physical but real all the same, such as protection from assault or nuisance6. It is unlikely that Justice Brandeis could envision a world entirely reliant on an intangible network of information such as the Internet, but his ideas can still be used today to protect Americans’ privacy in the digital

Cell phones are everywhere, with everyone at all time that it has become a danger to our privacy. During the last decade, technology has been evolving at a speedy rate. As predicted by George Orwell the parallel elements between his novel and our present day are significant. We have similar technology, similar tracking, similar invasion of privacy, and similar over reaches. The present has become an updated version of George Orwell’s 1984 novel.

That's my tracker,” by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan they talk about how every personal information that a citizen has safe on their phone is not safe and that their phones are in danger. In the article, they mention how “1.3 million of call data was collected”. Millions of cell phone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their calls. That proves that cell phone companies have definitely been watching our every move and how our phones have obviously become like our personal trackers. In the article, they also mention how “Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones on their networks – and this data is particularly treasured by police departments and online advertisers” this obviously shows that the government is able to obtain private information from citizens.

Apple – One of the main ethical dilemmas faced by Apple is about safeguarding the privacy of their customers or complying with the government to assist them with investigations which may be for the betterment of the whole country. Apple has introduced operating systems with default full-disk encryptions since iOS 8, to protect its user’s privacy and security. However, the FBI believes that encryption is merely a marketing strategy that will attract criminals at the cost of country’s safety. Since the introduction of full-disk encryption, the user created a passcode and Apple could access any information in the phone without the passcode. They believed that they did not want the power to access content so that law enforcement could figure out a way to do it themselves instead of asking Apple to invade their customer’s privacy.