Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Diego gang member is at heart of U.S. Supreme Court privacy ruling
LA Times ^ | 6-25-2014 | TONY PERRY AND MAURA DOLAN

Posted on 06/25/2014 8:15:16 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; scotus
Just ignore that cell phone in the arrested suspect's pocket. Eric Holder can find all that info in the NSA's Utah cloud storage anyway.
1 posted on 06/25/2014 8:15:16 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed
If you want to go through my 'papers and effects', get a warrant.

You can't enforce the law by breaking the law.

/johnny

2 posted on 06/25/2014 8:23:09 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Does that apply to my iPad? ... :-) ...


3 posted on 06/25/2014 8:24:07 PM PDT by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

You’ve definitely found the irony. The NSA et al can spy into any and every aspect of our lives. But a criminal, that’s off limits.

IMO If a suspect has a cell phone, police should be able to confiscate it (but not look at it) until a warrant is issued.


4 posted on 06/25/2014 8:28:09 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
They need a due process to take property. Or does that part of the Constitution not matter to you?

You can't enforce the law by breaking the law.

/johnny

5 posted on 06/25/2014 8:30:25 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
I can use my tablet to make phone calls.

A good lawyer can make that argument. They are part of your 'papers and effects'.

/johnny

6 posted on 06/25/2014 8:31:31 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
One other thing. NSA info can't be used (by statute) for criminal prosecutions. That's why the NSA was turning stuff over to local yokels and giving them cover stories on how to use it without revealing that it came from the NSA.

/johnny

7 posted on 06/25/2014 8:33:15 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed
Welcome to FR. I see you just joined last month.

/johnny

8 posted on 06/25/2014 8:33:55 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed
The IRS has shown that *it* believes in privacy as well.They didn't want any pesky teabagging Republicans seeing their private communications so they....
9 posted on 06/25/2014 8:38:15 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
I'm a registered Republican, a military veteran, and a “known supporter of the TEA party”. Under the current fed guidelines, I am automatically considered a suspected potential criminal...and so are you.

You posted a comment here.

Are you really so naive or just stupid enough not to comprehend, that the feds are now in control of your local LEOs?

10 posted on 06/25/2014 8:43:32 PM PDT by sarasmom (Extortion 17. A large number of Navy SEALs died on that mission. Ask why.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed

Just FYI - LA Times articles go in news not chat.


11 posted on 06/25/2014 8:47:20 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

If they otherwise have probable cause to arrest, then they should have a valid argument that they need to seize - but not examine - the smart phone before they get a warrant to search it in order to prevent the destruction of evidence.


12 posted on 06/25/2014 8:47:54 PM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

The ipad would seem the same as rifling thru ones file cabinet so I would say they need a warrant.


13 posted on 06/25/2014 8:55:54 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks.


14 posted on 06/25/2014 8:57:50 PM PDT by Citizen Zed ("Freedom costs a buck o five" - Gary Johnston, TAWP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Zed; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

15 posted on 06/25/2014 9:21:41 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
The courts love analogies. Should police seize a file cabinet before they get a warrant?

Because the only difference is the size of the object. Phones are easier.

And then lets talk about case law and locks on file cabinets.

/johnny

16 posted on 06/25/2014 9:23:48 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oceander; JRandomFreeper
If they otherwise have probable cause to arrest, then they should have a valid argument that they need to seize - but not examine - the smart phone before they get a warrant to search it in order to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Exactly right!

17 posted on 06/25/2014 10:18:43 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
Should they be able to seize a file cabinet without a warrant?

/johnny

18 posted on 06/25/2014 10:20:34 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
And in today's high tech world..... Seizing without a warrant may be destruction of evidence. I can think of 3 different ways to arrange for completely destroying evidence on a cell phone or tablet or in a file cabinet if they are seized without a warrant.

You can't uphold the law by breaking it.

Get a warrant.

/johnny

19 posted on 06/25/2014 10:24:18 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

you’re seeing exactly what can happen if people are allowed to hold onto evidence, in the IRS case, where thousands of emails were destroyed. Do you like the results?

I stand by my statement. Seize it. Don’t look at it. Apply immediately for a warrant. If warrant is denied return property uninspected. If warrant is approved, Inspect property.


20 posted on 06/25/2014 10:29:25 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
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

21 posted on 06/25/2014 10:31:12 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
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

22 posted on 06/25/2014 10:32:45 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Nothing I said was unconstitutional in any way.

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


23 posted on 06/25/2014 10:42:39 PM PDT by Cubs Fan (liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan
Does the government have the Constitutional authority to seize property without due process of law?

/johnny

24 posted on 06/25/2014 10:48:52 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cubs Fan

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.


25 posted on 06/25/2014 11:42:11 PM PDT by Glennb51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

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.


26 posted on 06/26/2014 7:05:50 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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

/johnny

27 posted on 06/26/2014 7:07:49 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

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.


28 posted on 06/26/2014 7:13:47 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
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

29 posted on 06/26/2014 7:17:48 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
it doesn’t carry a temporal aspect.

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

/johnny

30 posted on 06/26/2014 7:18:54 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Thank you for proving my point.


31 posted on 06/26/2014 7:19:07 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

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.


32 posted on 06/26/2014 7:20:51 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
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

33 posted on 06/26/2014 7:22:47 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

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.


34 posted on 06/26/2014 7:25:48 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oceander
And where in the Constitution are these 'exceptions' listed?

/johnny

35 posted on 06/26/2014 7:33:53 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
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.
36 posted on 06/26/2014 8:30:06 AM PDT by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson