Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Riley v california case facts
Riley v california case facts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Issue- California v. Riley, 134 S. Ct.2473 (2014): Pone seized during a lawful arrest. The Defendant David Leon Riley on August 2, 2009 in San Diego, California was a member of the Lincoln Park gang at the time of the crime. On that night during a random altercation with a rival gang Riley and his friends conducted a drive-by shooting which seriously injured members other rival gang. After the shooting Riley and his friends drove away in his 1989 Oldsmobile. Two weeks later on August 22, 2009 Riley was stop by law enforcement in a different vehicle than the night of the shooting with an expired license registration tags also his driver license was suspended. With those exterigent circumstances law enforcement arrested Riley at the scene of the traffic stop then proceeding to perform inventory search of the vehicle to confirm that the vehicle has all its components at the time of the seizure. Law enforcement conducts inventory of an arrestee property to protect against any liability claims from the defendant that their property is missing or to find any hidden contraband. While conducting their search of Riley vehicle police found two weapons inside the vehicle subsequently Riley was arrested for possession of an illegal firearms. At the police station The court originally dismissed the request and held that the search was valid under the SITA doctrine Riley was convicted of the crimes. “On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment based on the recent California Supreme Court decision People v. Diaz. In Diaz, the court held that the Fourth Amendment "search-incident-to-arrest" doctrine permits the police to conduct a full exploratory search of a cell phone (even if it is conducted later and at a different location) whenever the phone is found near the suspect at the time of
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to 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.
In Riley v. California, the San Diego Police pulled over David Riley in late August 2009 when it was noticed that he had expired registrations tags. At the time,
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
In another case, Hunt v. State (2013), Delaware State Trooper David Pritchett was asked by the Vice Principal of Richard A. Shields Elementary School to talk to a small group of fifth graders who were in "in-school suspension" about bullying on January 30, 2008. Pritchett was completing a four month SRO (School Resource Officer) assignment for the School District. The day after Pritchett's presentation, one of the students informed an administrator that another fifth grade student had taken money from an autistic student on the bus. The vice principal contacted the mother of the student who had taken the money, asking permission to have the SRO come to school and talk to the student, the student's mother gave consent. Both the vice principal and the SRO pulled the student into the reading lab for questioning. During this time, the vice
In Michigan v. Clifford, "the utility of requiring a magistrate to evaluate the grounds for a search following a fire is so limited that the incidental protection of an individual's privacy interests simply does not justify imposing a warrant requirement;" therefore, the search of the basement was reasonable (1984). The issues of that case revolve around the unreasonable search of the second floor of the home which required a criminal warrant because at that moment the arson inspectors had reasonable suspicion that the origin of the fire may have been arson (1984). Moreover, the effect and papers on the second floor of the Clifford's dwelling is protected under the 4th amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV).
John Geddes Lawrence (medical technologist, 60 years old) and Tyron Garner (barbecue vendor, 36 years old) were the petitioners in the case. They were found by the police at the moment they were having sex in the apartment of Lawrence in the Houston on September 17 in 1998 . They were arrested by the sheriff's deputy who entered the apartment which was not locked with the weapon and arrested both men.
A case concerning the authority of Congress to enact legislation under the Commerce Clause. While a student enrolled at Virginia Tech in 1994, Christy Brozonkala alleged that she was assaulted and raped by fellow students and football players Antonio Morrison and James Crawford. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. The Committee found insufficient evidence against Crawford. After the findings from the first hearing were dismissed for administrative reasons, a second hearing was held, and Morrison was found guilty of “using “abusive language.” Morrison appealed the decision to the provost and the punishment was set aside for being
hopes that it would help prevent future clerical errors. Since one of the main goals of the exclusionary rule is to prevent future violations, and in this case clerical errors.
One of the most important amendments in the United States Constitution and which is also part of the Bill of Rights is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from being searched or arrested by police officers or any law enforcement without a reason. An officer may confront you and ask to search your house but if they don’t have a search warrant, they cannot legally pursue it without good reason and permission from a judge. Now what happens when a person is being arrested? Does the police or any law enforcement need a search warrant? The answer to that question would have to be no. This is where “Search incident to arrest” comes into play. Search incident to arrest (SITA), which could also be called the Chimel rule, is a
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
A search occurs when the police or other government agency intrudes into a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a seizure occurs when they affect a person’s right to have the property. “Some examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy include: Places of residence, Hotel rooms, certain public places such as restrooms, some areas of jail houses, phone booths and certain areas of a car” (Rivera, ...