Search results
Wurie was convicted. The First Circuit reversed and vacated the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed as to Riley and affirmed as to Wurie. The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
- 414 U. S. 218
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218...
- Opinions by Volume
This is a set of several hundred volumes that has been...
- 414 U. S. 218
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), [1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. [2] [3]
1 maj 2016 · The U.S. Supreme Court held that the government’s conduct in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and constituted an unlawful “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
10 lis 2014 · The Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal in Riley and affirmed the First Circuit in Wurie. 29 Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts 30 held that the “answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is . . . simple — get a warrant.” 31.
22 mar 2017 · California, Supreme Court of the United States, (2014) Case Summary of Riley v. California: Riley was convicted of a shooting related offense after evidence seized from his cell phone (incident to his arrest) was used against him in court.
For case information from previous terms, we recommend starting with the Docket Search located on the California Courts website (external); you can search by case number, case name, or names of the parties associated with the case.
2 kwi 2021 · April 02, 2021. By Jeffrey D. Wohl, Emily J. Stover, & Isabella Hubert. When it comes to recording telephone calls, it takes two to consent, at least in California. That is what the California Supreme Court recently confirmed in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., No. S26039 (Apr. 1, 2021).
