ssss

1305 Words6 Pages
JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion to the court. In 2007 Gregory Diaz was arrested in Ventura County, California, after he sold ecstasy to a police informant. After being detained and brought to the police station, where he was interrogated, Gregory Diaz’s phone was searched by deputy Fazio without a warrant. The phones text messages were found to have incriminating evidence. Upon being confronted with the evidence Mr. Diaz confessed and was charged with transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The defendant pled guilty but later moved to suppress the evidence and his confession. The defendant’s motion was on the grounds that searching his phone without a warrant violated his constitutional rights, set by the fourth amendment, against unlawful search and seizure. The trial court found the search to be lawful because the object was in his possession upon arrest, therefore subject to search incident to arrest, rejecting his motion. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, where the trial court decision was held. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case because of conflict within lower courts, seen in U.S v. Wurie, 13-212 and Riley v. California, 13-132. The petitioner argued that cell phones searched incident to arrest was not constitutional under 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. (U.S. Const. amend. IV). ... ... middle of paper ... ...ithout a warrant. However, the court does acknowledge the fact that personal items, irrelevant to the arrest are contained within a phone, therefore a phone, wallet, diary and the like, can only be searched if it is suspected to have information regarding the present criminal accusations. The court has affirmed the Supreme Court of California’s decision (51 Cal. 4th 84, 244 P.3d 501, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105). The ruling stands, an electronic storage device found on a person at the time of arrest can be searched incident to arrest, regardless of time, when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found on the phone, and the evidence seized from the phone is relevant to the crime of arrest. Indication of any other crime separate from the current investigation at hand cannot be used as evidence against the arrestee. It is so ordered.

More about ssss

Open Document