Essay Sample on Fourth Amendment: Search of Cellphones & Privacy Protection

Introduction

According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, it protects individuals from any unreasonable searches and seizures by the police. Within the details of this rule and protection, it extends to people and their properties in that it applies where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (Jones, 1996). The interpretation of the Fourth Amendment concerning the search of cellphones has been an issue for the longest time now. However, the Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case is a major U.S Supreme Court case providing the details of warrantless search and seizure of the contents of a cell phone in arrest (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). The paper will endeavor to answer the question as to whether police require a warrant to search a personal cell phone. Based on the Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case, the paper will provide issues involved, facts of the case, the Court's reasoning and majority opinion, and also offer individual reasoning about the legal systems and issued involved.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Types of Issues Involved in the Case

In the case Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014), there are issues of substantive and procedural rights involved. As the substantive rights define how the facts in a case are to be handled alongside how the crime will be charged while the procedural rights lay the rules and the process for the example, these issues are evident in the Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case considering the ruling made prior to the Supreme Court decision (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). In the case, different courts split in the decision concerning the warrantless search and seizure of a cell phone. For example, the federal and state courts split in the ruling as the Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits had delivered a verdict that the police can search a cell phone to arrest under different standards. Within the proceedings of the case, the Supreme Courts of Georgia, California, and Massachusetts followed the ruling while other Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio, and the First Circuit disagreed with the verdict. These prior rulings on the Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case deliver a significant substantive and procedural rights issue (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014).

Another issue involved in Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case is the Bill of Rights (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). Within the United States Bill of Rights, it accommodates the Fourth Amendment, which stands for the protection of people against unreasonable searches and seizures (Jones, 1996). According to the Fourth Amendment, it requires that before a search warrant is issued, a probable cause is necessary (Jones, 1996). However, in as much as the probable cause is needed, there are notable exceptions to the requirement of a warrant. Such as consent (whereby the cell phone owner accepted the consent to the search), plain view, search incident to arrest, and hot pursuit (the pursuit of the suspect and the officer believe that the suspect could destroy evidence). Also, the exceptions could include stop and frisk (police officers can stop and frisk a person they believe is armed and dangerous), and the automobile exception (the phone was located in an automobile with a reduced amount of privacy). The issue about the Fourth Amendment is based on the interpretation of the law defining whether a police officer may, without a warrant search the digital data on the seized cell phone (Jones, 1996).

Basic Facts of Riley v. California Case

In the Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case, the petitioner, David Leon Riley, was pulled over for traffic violation that resulted to his arrest as he was driving on an expired license registration. Since Riley's driving license was suspended as well, it was required that the car gets impounded. Before impounding of the vehicle, the police ought to perform a search for the inventory to ensure that the car has all the components at the exact time of seizure to protect against liability claims. However, as the officer searched the vehicle, two rifles were located, leading to Riley's arrest for the possession of firearms (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). Further, during the arrest, Riley's cell phone was seized. The police accessed the cell phone noticing the use of street gang terms. At the station, a specialized gang detective examined the contents of the cell phone in the videos and photographs on the gang indicia in the device to determine Riley's affiliation to the gang. Through ballistics tests, Riley was charged in connection to a shooting that happened a few weeks earlier and separate charges were taken to include attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and assault with a firearm.

Additionally, before the trial, Riley decided to suppress all evidence in connection to his involvement and affiliation with the gang that had been retrieved through his cell phone. However, this motion was denied. In the proceedings of the trial, there was testimony from a gang expert testifying that Riley's membership in the Lincoln Park gang, the enmity between the involved groups and how the shooting could be connected to the gang. Later on, Riley was convicted on three counts and sentenced 15 years imprisonment. The ruling was affirmed by the Fourth District, Division 1, and the California Court of Appeal (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014).

Description of the Court and Reasoning of the Majority Opinion

In the Supreme Court case review of Riley v. California, 573 U.S (2014) case, the Supreme Court based its reasoning on the United States v. Wurie case. In the case, Jeffrey L. Fisher argued for Riley while Edward C. DuMont argued on behalf of the respondent (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). Within the decision of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts provided the opinion of the Supreme Court concluding that a search warrant is necessary and a requirement to search personal cell phone. In the decision, Justice Roberts added that the case failed the warrantless search test in line with other cases such as the Chimel v. California case. In the reasoning of the Court case, the different exceptions to search a person to an arrest is only valid based on the requirements of the Fourth Amendment which is permitted to avoid evidence destruction and for the officer's safety. It means, there is no risk of safety in a cell phone warranting any examination beyond the regular search to ensure that the phone is not concealing a weapon.

As the Court considers the indigent occurrences exception and its application, the Supreme Court held that there is minimal risk of evidence destruction once the officer has secured the cell phone. There were concerns of remotely wiping the device as defined in the Chimel v. California, 395 U.S 752 (1969) case, that an arrested individual may destroy available evidence. Even though the right to privacy is diminished once an individual is arrested, it does not mean that they should be treated as complete deprivation of privacy rights. In the case, the Court distinguished that the search and seizure of a cell phone from the invasion of privacy in unconstitutional. As such, it means that the pursuit of information retrieved from a cell phone without a warrant is a massive invasion of the individual right to privacy as a result of the quantity and quality of data in the devices.

In the decision, Justice Roberts provided the argument that cell phones differ both in terms of quality and quantity from other objects found in a person's pockets. The Court concluded in line with the government's assertion that a warrantless search of a person's cell phone is justified in the case that there are reasons to believe that the device contains evidence of the crime of arrest. In consideration of the reasoning of the majority opinion, most of the perceptions are based on the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. A police officer may not search a cell phone during an arrest in the absence of a demonstration of exigent circumstances or a search warrant.

The Reasoning of the Concurring Opinion

About Riley v. California case, Justice Samuel Alito delivered an argument opinion in concurrence with the judgement offered by Justice Roberts (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). By citing the Arizona v. Gant Court case, Justice Alito offered arguments stating that one cannot mechanically apply rules used in the pre-digital period to search a phone. As he tried to deliver a balance between the privacy issues and law enforcement, Justice Alito held that cell phones store valuable information excluding it from individual judgements today. Also, most of the exception of the search of cell phones incident to arrest is based on instance about the destruction of evidence and the safety of the officer.

Personal Opinion on the Court's Decision

In consideration to U.S Supreme Court decision as delivered by Justice Roberts, I concur with the decision that a search warrant is required to search a cell phone. According to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, a warrant is critical in the Searches and Seizure of properties (Jones, 1996). In this case, it is only right that the officer obtains a warrant before conducting the search of contents in a cell phone seized incident to arrest because of the kind of information stored. Otherwise, searching for the cell phone content would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In as much as there are exceptions to the First Amendment searches and seizure, cell phone devices cannot be perceived as other types of property (Jones, 1996).

Opinion on the Legal System and Issues Involved in the Case

The Riley v. California Supreme Court case is a significant landmark in the cell phone searches (Lamparello & MacLeon, 2014). As such, one cannot deny the fact that different decisions deliver an impact on the ability of the government to counter crime based on privacy. Following the legal systems and issues involved in Riley v. California case, the California Courts of Appeal, Fourth District, among other affirming Riley's conviction did not consider the requirements of the Fourth Amendment (Jones, 1996). However, with the decision of the Supreme Court, the Court adhered to all the needs of the Bill of Rights, ensuring that individual privacy is protected. With the details offered in the procedural history and the rule of law as applied in the Court case, it means that the police require a warrant to search a cell phone. The practice of warrantless search of the cell phone would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

References

Jones, S. P. (1996). Reasonable Expectations of Privacy: Searches, Seizures, and the Concept of Fourth Amendment Standing. U. Mem. L. Rev., 27, 907.

Lamparello, A., & MacLeon, C. E. (2014). Riley V. California: Privacy Still Matters, but How Much and in What Contexts. Regent UL Rev., 27, 25.