Hejtmanek 1

Giuliana Hejtmanek
Mr. Williams
Honors American Literature
May 2, 2015
Riley v. California
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution, Amendment
IV).
Whether the right to privacy is protected by the U.S. constitution is debatable. Many may
argue that the right to privacy is implied in the fourth amendment. However, what constitutes a
persons effects and what dictates probable cause is loosely defined. Additionally, there are
several circumstances under which the fourth amendment could be circumvented (The Fourth
Amendment). For this, several different cases have been taken to the Supreme Court to further
define the powers that legislation may impose upon civilians; primarily concerning warrantless
searches. Riley v. California being one of them.
In August of 2009, David Leon Riley was pulled over for driving on expired license
registration tags. After running Rileys license, the officer discovered that it was suspended and
was required to impound Rileys car. Prior to the seizure of the vehicle, an inventory search is
conducted to ensure that the vehicle has all its components at the time of seizure, to protect

Hejtmanek 2

against liability claims in the future, and to discover hidden contraband (Riley v. California).
The discovery of two hidden firearms during this search resulted in Rileys arrest. In his
possession during this arrest was Rileys cellphone. The police confiscated it and, without a
warrant, searched and analyzed its contents. They discovered photographs, videos, messages, and
contacts that corroborated Rileys affiliation with the Lincoln Park gang. With further
investigation, they tied Riley to a gang-related shooting that happened earlier that month. Riley
was convicted of one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle, one count of attempted murder,
and one count of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and sentenced 15 year to life in prison
(Riley v. California).
In April of 2014, However, Rileys lawyer petitioned to suppress the evidence obtained
through Rileys cell phone. He argued that the evidence was inadmissible in court because it was
obtained through an unlawful search. The California Supreme court held that the phones search
and seizure was lawful because it occurred during a search incident to arrest, such the precedent
upheld of the similar case People v. Diaz in 2011 (Riley v. California). However, when brought
about the U.S. Supreme Court that argument was ruled invalid, due to the fact that the cell phone
posed no threat to the officers. The Supreme Court overturned the precedent set in the 2011 case
of People v. Diaz and unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of a cell phones
digital contents is unconstitutional (Cellphone Searches).

Hejtmanek 3

Works Cited
"The Bill of Rights: A Transcription." National Archives and Records Administration. National
Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web.
"The Fourth Amendment." Findlaw. Thomson Reuters, n.d. Web.
Riley v. California. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 8 Feb. 2013. Print.
"Riley v. California." Electronic Privacy Information Center. EPIC, n.d. Web.
"RILEY v. CALIFORNIA." Riley v. California. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College
of Law, n.d. Web.
"Supreme Court to Decide Case on Police Cellphone Searches." Washington Post. The
Washington Post, n.d. Web.