Add to ORKGRiley v. California is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the searches of cell phones by law enforcement. The 2014 unanimous decision requires a warrant for all cell phone searches incident to arrest absent an emergency. This work summarizes the legal precedent and analyzes the limitations and practical implications of the ruling. General guidelines for members of the criminal justice system at all levels consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision are provided
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seiz...
Since their development in the 1980s, cell phones have become ubiquitous in modern society. Today, c...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...
<p><em>Riley v. California</em> is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the s...
In 2014, in Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the police must obtain a warrant b...
Riley v. California is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the searches of c...
As in the past few years, most of the action in the Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term was on the civil ...
Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before sea...
In Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police conducting a lawful search incident...
In light of the privacy concerns inherent to personal technological devices, the Supreme Court hande...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court ushered privacy protections into the digital...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that a warrant is generally required fo...
Only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies in the United States obtain a warrant before track...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement must generally obt...
In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court decided that when police officers seize a smart phone, the...
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seiz...
Since their development in the 1980s, cell phones have become ubiquitous in modern society. Today, c...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...
<p><em>Riley v. California</em> is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the s...
In 2014, in Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the police must obtain a warrant b...
Riley v. California is the United States Supreme Court’s first attempt to regulate the searches of c...
As in the past few years, most of the action in the Supreme Court’s 2013-2014 Term was on the civil ...
Last year, in Riley v. California, the Supreme Court required police to procure a warrant before sea...
In Riley v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police conducting a lawful search incident...
In light of the privacy concerns inherent to personal technological devices, the Supreme Court hande...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court ushered privacy protections into the digital...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that a warrant is generally required fo...
Only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies in the United States obtain a warrant before track...
In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement must generally obt...
In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court decided that when police officers seize a smart phone, the...
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seiz...
Since their development in the 1980s, cell phones have become ubiquitous in modern society. Today, c...
Part I of this note discusses the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seiz...