Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 2 Notes
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 2 Notes SOC 2146
Popular in The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Sociology
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Freddi Marsillo on Monday September 12, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SOC 2146 at George Washington University taught by Saltzburg, S in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see The Bill of Rights and Criminal Justice in Sociology at George Washington University.
Reviews for Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice Week 2 Notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/12/16
Bill of Rights & Criminal Justice – Week 2 9/12/16 1:08 PM Riley v. California (2014) (Roberts) • Riley’s car stopped with expired registration tags; officer discovers his license was suspended • Officer examined cell phone and a detective further examined it at station • Riley convicted of weapons and gang-related crimes • Wurie arrested after drug sale • At station, officers seize 2 cell phones • See calls coming in from “my house” • Call log indicates number; officers trace it to an apartment and obtain search warrant • Wurie convicted of drug and being a felon in possession • Held: Robinson strikes appropriate balance for physical objects but “a search of information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search considered in Robinson” • Rejects hypo that officers could be alerted that friends are headed to the scene • No reason to believe that remote wiping and data encryption are reasons for search o Exigent circumstances may permit search o Exigent circumstances: exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures o Exigent circumstances occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant • Emphasizes storage capacity and privacy o Data may not even be stored on the device itself – it might be on the cloud • The court rejected Gant approach (search for evidence of crime of arrest) • Also rejected US argument that officer should be able to at least search the call log; not analogous to Smith (the pen register case) • Rejected California argument that officers could search if they could have obtained the same information from a pre-digital source Riley v. California (2014) (Alito, Concurring in Part) • Not convinced that ancient rule of search incident of the person is based on Chimel rationales (Chimel = search incident to arrest) • Really based on the need to obtain probative evidence o Probative = intending to prove • But does not see a workable alternative to the court’s approach 9/12/16 1:08 PM 9/12/16 1:08 PM
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'