Riley v. California

Riley v. California
U.S. v. Wurie
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 29, 2014
Decided June 25, 2014
Full case nameDavid Leon Riley, Petitioner v. California;
United States, Petitioner v. Brima Wurie
Docket nos.13-132
13-212
Citations573 U.S. 373 (more)
134 S. Ct. 2473; 189 L. Ed. 2d 430
Case history
Prior
  • People v. Riley, No. D059840, 2013 Cal App Unpub Lexis 1033, 2013 WL 475242 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Feb. 08, 2013); cert. granted, 71 U.S. 1161 (2014).
  • United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2009); reversed, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 71 U.S. 1161 (2014).
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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceAlito (in part and in the judgment)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
People v. Diaz (2011)

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]

The case arose from inconsistent rulings on cell phone searches from various state and federal courts. The Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits had ruled that police officers can search cell phones incident to arrest under various standards. That rule was also accepted by the Supreme Courts of Georgia, Massachusetts, and California. On the other hand, the First Circuit and the Supreme Courts of Florida and Ohio disagreed and ruled that police needed a warrant to search the information on a suspect's phone.[3] California had also proposed a state statute requiring police to obtain a warrant before searching the contents of "portable electronic devices".[4]

Riley has been widely praised as “a sweeping victory for privacy rights”[5] with legal scholars describing the decision as "the privacy gift that keeps on giving."[6]

  1. ^ Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014).
  2. ^ Mathews, Kristen J. "Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Protects Cell Phones from Warrantless Searches". National Law Review. Archived from the original on February 3, 2023. Retrieved August 2, 2014.
  3. ^ a b Clark, William (December 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 (5).
  4. ^ "Riley v. California - Concerning the Constitutionality of a Warrantless Cell Phone Search Incident to Arrest". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Archived from the original on March 22, 2023. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  5. ^ "Supreme Court Says Phones Can't Be Searched Without a Warrant - The New York Times". The New York Times. December 6, 2023. Archived from the original on December 6, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
  6. ^ "Symposium: Inaugurating the digital Fourth Amendment". SCOTUSblog. June 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.