Classroom Moot Court Riley vs California Can police search your cell phone without a warrant If you were responsible for selecting judges in California what would you look for California Courts ID: 728994
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "California Courts Judicial Outreach" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
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