San Diego gang member is at heart of U.S. Supreme Court privacy ruling

LA Times ^ | 6-25-2014 | TONY PERRY AND MAURA DOLAN

[Citizen Zed]

When David Riley, a 19-year-old member of San Diego's Lincoln Park gang, was arrested in August 2009 on suspicion of shooting at a rival gang member, it received little or no public notice.

The same was true when Riley's first trial ended in a hung jury, and when he was convicted at a second trial of attempted murder and other charges, and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

But now Riley's name has assumed national legal prominence as one of two cases that led to Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended privacy rights to cellphones, a sweeping ruling for the digital age when information about a person's entire life can be stored in a mobile device."We got everything we wanted," said Stanford law professor Jeffrey Fisher, who was part of the team that argued the case at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court ruled 9 to 0 that police acted improperly when they seized Riley's smartphone without a warrant and discovered evidence used at his trial linking him to the gang and the shooting.

[JRandomFreeper]

I don't care about the results so much, win some, lose some. I care that the government follow the process outlined in the Constitution.

Do you care about that?

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

And you are comparing apples to oranges. Government agencies don't have the rights that citizens do.

IRS does not equal gang banger in LA. The gang banger in LA has rights. The IRS does not.

/johnny

[Cubs Fan]

Nothing I said was unconstitutional in any way.

Even Gangbangers have rights. But they don’t have the right to destroy evidence.

[JRandomFreeper]

Does the government have the Constitutional authority to seize property without due process of law?

/johnny

[Glennb51]

The courts have held that gathering evidence is a responsibility of law enforcement. The device can be confiscated, a receipt given, and the device logged into evidence. A search warrant would be obtained then to examine the contents.

[Oceander]

Sorry but you’re barking up the wrong tree. If there is probable cause to arrest, then seizing possessions on the arrestee’s person is justified if for no other reason under the inventory exception to the warrant rule. Preventing the destruction of evidence is also an exception to the warrant rule. The only reasonable requirement is that a warrant be obtained before the phone is examined.

[JRandomFreeper]

So you are saying that the government CAN seize property without due process of law.

/johnny

[Oceander]

Hardly. The accused has every opportunity to contest the seizure and to have a neutral party - a judge - determine the propriety of the government’s seizure. Due process consists of the right to be heard in a neutral forum, it doesn’t carry a temporal aspect.

You seem to be deplorably ignorant of due process and search/seizure/warrant topics.

[JRandomFreeper]

I can read the plain language of the 4th and 5th Amendments. I can read the history of how due process used to be carried out.

Exceptions carved out by judges don't count for much in my opinion.

The reason that the Constitution is treated like waste paper is that both parties have carved out 'exceptions' for their favorite hobby horse.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

it doesn’t carry a temporal aspect.

Then why does a warrant need to issue before the property is searched?

/johnny

[Oceander]

Thank you for proving my point.

[Oceander]

It doesn’t always need to issue before property is searched. Again, you’re simply demonstrating your woeful, deplorable ignorance of search/seizure/warrant law.

Thank you for proving my point, however.

[JRandomFreeper]

It doesn’t always need to issue before property is searched.

The Supreme Court just ruled that a warrant must issue before the phone is searched.

/johnny

[Oceander]

Of course, because none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applied.

The exceptions to the requirement are part and parcel of the rule itself. If you cannot fathom even that then you truly are abysmally ignorant.

[JRandomFreeper]

And where in the Constitution are these 'exceptions' listed?

/johnny

[Oceander]

Thank you for proving my point. The authority for searches or seizures without a warrant is right there in the plain text of the Fourth Amendment itself.

Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment:
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.

That language makes two separate provisions:

First, that "unreasonable searches and seizures" are unconstitutional, and

Second, that warrants can only be issued on probable cause and for specific persons or things.

What the language does not do is to make a valid warrant a prerequisite for a search or seizure to be valid (i.e., reasonable). In other words, the plain language of the Fourth Amendment permits searches and seizures without a warrant provided that a given search or seizure is reasonable.

That does not make the warrant requirement meaningless. For one thing, a search or seizure that is conducted pursuant to a warrant is presumptively reasonable. For a second, the main abuse that part of the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent was the use of so-called "general warrants" which essentially gave the holder license to search for whatever or whomever he wanted, where ever he wanted to search, and did not have to provide any limitations on that license.

Q.E.D.