Part 1

The case in context suggests that Riley was stopped for a traffic violation and a lot of illegal arms were discovered in his car after the police search of the vehicle. The person was arrested and later his cell phone was searched for evidence of previous crimes on which he was further given an additional charge for having done some illegal shooting without harming anybody previously as per the contents of the phone. Here the defendant picked up the clause of personal information breach by the police for not having proper warrantee to search his personal device for search. The defendant oppose for checking the personal information without having any authority. However, the defendant produced the ABA Civil Rights and social justice committee findings on the Privacy and information protection clause to have the cell phone data not to be seen by the police or Border Security if there is no previous need to see them for any personal data stored in the cell phones  (Clark, 2015). This brought in the Alan Butler’s prediction come true for border police as well where the search of the person and his belongings at the site of arrest is different from a police officer to have a cell phone checked for anyone trespassing in the border security (Miller, 2015). The defendant brought in the First Amendment to protect his privacy and data without a warrant is unconstitutional. This case is a ready reckoned for the Fourth Amendment’s privacy issues where the officer may search the cell phone of a suspect without any preconditions based on suspicions. The defendant can’t object if an officer search all information of cell phones if he finds the person suspect.

However of the millions of arrests per year in the US the police officer can only search the individual and the cell phone cannot be searched since the data can be stored in the set of away from the set in some cloud drives which made the lower court rule in the case of Riley Vs California to search the contains of the cell phone of the arrested individual due to privacy breach or for more information for the case (Butler, 2015). However post-arrest the defendant removed all the cell phone contents after the arrest on the ground of the violation of the 4^th Amendment. As in the previous case of people Vs Diaz the cell phone was searched where the defendant Diaz asked the search incident to arrest at a different place from the place of arrest. This then was brought forth to the Supreme Court by Diaz (Miller, 2015). When they were waiting for the results of the application the Supreme Court’s order, a new legislation from the state of California came in where the suspect’s cell phone search needed a warrant separately from the arrest of the suspect to keeping his devices safe till a separate warrant to search for his files and folders for the job is been made and used (Ziv, 2015). Now if the officer is not having any special authority to check the cell phones of defendant, then he can’t force the defendant to do so. So when the legislation came out it was mandated by the police to get a separate warrant to search the defendant for the needed information for the search incident to arrest. This will help in protecting the safety concerns of the defendant too.

Part 2

This decision of the Supreme Court of California was brought forth by the defendant Riley to preserve his information and data in all devises whether portable or at home to be searched only with a valid court warrant. However, there was a split on the same grounds on various state and federal courts where the states of Georgia, Massachusetts, and California while the courts of Florida and Ohio disagreed on the same (Clark, 2015). So the Supreme court made the clauses clear that he police can search the person and his immediate vicinity at the time of arrest which is to make the officers secure and disarm the suspect while also stop them from the destruction of evidence while being arrested. So applying these principles the court came to the conclusion that the suspect could not have used the cell phone for damaging witness or use it to let a gun work at a longer distance with the cell phone. So the cell can be collected from the individual but it can only be searched for its contents with a valid warrant (Wong, 2015). So the justification of searches out of the judicial process and without prior approval of the judge or magistrate was prohibited by the US laws of 2009 like 332, 334 and 339 of the act. So the defendant here took the case of Chimel to discuss the case that the search of his cell phone and personal storage devices was unreasonable and the police should have a warrant separately for the same citing the extraordinary kind of personal information unrelated to the case may be stored in his devices (Butler, 2015). So this made the EPIC uphold the 4^th Amendment principles to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. So the process was applied in this case well. This case also defines that an officer can search for private data of defendant only if he is having warrant.

Reference

Butler, A. (2015). Get a Warrant: The Supreme Court’s New Course for Digital Privacy Rights after Riley v. California. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 10.

Clark, W. (2015). Protecting the Privacies of Digital Life: Riley v. California, the Fourth Amendment’s Particularity Requirement, and Search Protocols for Cell Phone Search Warrants. BCL Rev., 56, 1981.

Miller, T. M. (2015). Digital Border Searches After Riley v. California. Wash. L. Rev., 90, 1943.

Wong, M. Y. (2015). United States v Camou: Warrantless Cell Phone Searches after Riley v California. Legal Issues J., 3, 133.

Ziv, M. (2015). Riley v. California: Can You Hear the Equilibrium Now?. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30(4), 1283-1316.