Riley V California

Facts:

Riley was stopped for a traffic violation, which eventually led to his arrest
on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley incident to the arrest seized a
cell phone from Riley. The officer accessed information on the phone and a
detective specializing in gangs further examined the phone’s digital contents. The
State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that had occurred a few weeks
earlier and sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership.
Riley moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his cell
phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted.

Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent

drug sale. The officers seized a cell phone from Wurie’s person. The officers
opened the phone, accessed its call log, determined the number associated with
the “my house” label, and traced that number to what they suspected was
Wurie’s apartment. They secured a search warrant and found drugs, a firearm
and ammunition, and cash in the ensuing search. Wurie was then charged with
drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the
search of the apartment. The District Court denied the motion, and Wurie was
convicted.

Issue:

Whether or not the police require a search warrant to look through the
accused’s phone for information that may be related to the crime done.

Ruling:

The court erred in their decision as the search of the accused’s cellphone was
unconstitutional as a warrant is required for them to do so as a phone contains
personal information in its data though the police can do protective measures to
secure the information held by the phone until such warrant is produced. Both
Riley and Wurie were then violated in their right of privacy. The same is still
observed in cases of searches incident to arrest,(Chimel v California) as the
phone is considered as an extension of one’s person as it carries the personal
information, data and files but if done without the warrant the evidence is then
inadmissible in court, or the allegations or information derived from the device
would be considered void.