Riley v. California
| Riley v. California | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 29, 2014 Decided June 25, 2014 |
|
| Full case name | David Leon Riley, Petitioner v. California; United States, Petitioner v. Brima Wurie |
| Docket nos. |
13-132 13-212 |
| Citations | 573 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Holding | |
| Police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a landmarkUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.
The case arose from a split among state and federal courts over the cell phone search incident to arrest (SITA) doctrine. The Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits had ruled that officers can search cell phones incident to arrest under various standards. That rule was followed by the Supreme Courts of Georgia, Massachusetts, and California. Other courts in the First Circuit and the Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio disagreed.
In Chimel v. California (1969), the Court ruled that if police arrest someone, they may search the body of the person without a warrant and "the area into which he might reach" in order to protect material evidence or the officers' safety. That is the origin of the notion that police may search a suspect, and the area immediately surrounding the person, without a warrant during a lawful arrest in accordance with the SITA doctrine
...
Wikipedia