Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Riley v. California (2014) – The U.S. Supreme Court held that "police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested." [1] In other words, unless an exigent circumstance is present, police may not search an arrestee's cell phone without a warrant. Birchfield v.
Emergency aid doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing warrantless entry to premises if exigent circumstances make it necessary. [8] A number of exceptions are classified under the general heading of criminal enforcement: where evidence of a suspected crime is in danger of being lost; where the police officers are in hot pursuit; where there is a probability that a suspect ...
The dissenting judges noted the law enforcement objectives set out by the majority but suggested that they would be more fairly balanced with privacy interests given a modification of the common-law framework allowing warrantless cell phone searches incident to arrest only in exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances would require of law ...
The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be ...
“There are exigent circumstances, such as where the information is required to prevent imminent bodily harm.” “If there is a reasonable law authorizing access.” “If the information being sought does not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy.” [13] [15] The second court case to refer to is from the same year but in December.
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.
Vergara is the first federal circuit court to address whether Riley's reasoning extends to a search of a traveler's cell phone at the border. [16] In Vergara , a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that, "border searches never require probable cause or a warrant," and Riley's analysis does not apply to border searches ...