California Courts Judicial Outreach - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

California Courts Judicial Outreach

Classroom Moot Court

Riley vs. California

Can police search your cell phone without a warrant?Slide2

If you were responsible for selecting judges in California, what would you look for?

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

Knowledge

Skills

Disposition/qualitiesSlide3

Judicial Decision Making

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

Other elected officials

may make decisions based on:

Needs/desires of their voters

Their own beliefs

Special interest groups

Their political party’s agenda

Judges make decisions based on the law

State and U.S. Constitution

Statutes

Precedent: prior cases

Legal reasoning

Higher court decisions

Code of Ethics – be impartialSlide4

You be the Judge

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and decide a real case.Slide5

California Courts Judicial Outreach

“

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no

Warrants

shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth AmendmentBut first, you need to know the US Constitution Slide6

California Courts Judicial Outreach

The Case: Riley vs. California

(2014)

1.

2.

3.

4.Slide7

Trial Court: Motion to Suppress?

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

A motion to suppress evidence is a request by a defendant that the judge exclude certain evidence from trialSlide8

Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches?

California Courts

Judicial OutreachSlide9

The Case continues to move through the courtsThe CA Court of Appeal (4th District) affirmed the Superior Courts decision.

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

The CA Supreme Court denied review; Court of Appeal decision stands as final.

The case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.Slide10

Judicial Outreach

California Courts

Judicial Outreach

Real Case DocumentsSlide11

California Courts Judicial Outreach

PRECEDENT

How does the Supreme Court decide?

Chimel

v. California, 395 U. S. 752, a case in 1969, that found that a warrantless search incident to arrest should be:

Limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control

Where it is justified by the interest in officer safety

Preventing evidence destructionSlide12

California Courts Judicial Outreach

What are arguments for and against?

Activity: You be the Judge

You decide:

Should evidence be discounted if obtained from Riley’s cell phone without a warrant?Slide13

California Courts Judicial Outreach

Arguments

against

warrantless search of a cell phone

Officer is in no immediate danger from a cell phone; it can’t be used as a weapon

The cell phone can be confiscated by police, so that the arrestee can’t change any evidence on it and there is time then for the police to get a warrant

The nature of the cell phone itself

ArgumentsSlide14

California Courts Judicial Outreach

Arguments

for

warrantless search of a cell phone

(ii) The United States and California raise concerns about the destruction of evidence, arguing that, even if the cell phone is physically secure, information on the cell phone remains vulnerable to remote wiping and data encryption.

A search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger, e.g., that the arrestee’s confederates are headed to the scene

Inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself Slide15

California Courts Judicial Outreach

You Be the Judge

Based on

Facts of the Case

Constitution

PrecedentSlide16

California Courts

Judicial Outreach