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.

[Citizen Zed]

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.

[JRandomFreeper]

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

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

/johnny

[Star Traveler]

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

[Cubs Fan]

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.

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[JRandomFreeper]

Welcome to FR. I see you just joined last month.

/johnny

[Gay State Conservative]

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....

[sarasmom]

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?

[BuckeyeTexan]

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

[Oceander]

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.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

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

[Citizen Zed]

Thanks.

[BuckeyeTexan]

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

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[Cubs Fan]

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!

[JRandomFreeper]

Should they be able to seize a file cabinet without a warrant?

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

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

[Cubs Fan]

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.