Superior Court

Riley vs. California
A decision has been made. The petition was granted and there was a trail. The juries
convict Riley of all three counts and sent him to 15 years to life in prison. The California Court
of Appeal, Four District, and Division 1 affirmed the juries’ decision. The issue that is being
discussed is the Fourth Amendment, which is you need a warrant to search someone when there
is probable cause.
David Leon Riley was part of the Lincoln Park Gang in San Diego, CA. A shooting
occurs on August 8, 2009, and Riley had a shootout with a rival gang member. Riley escaped in
another car, and on August 22,2009, he was pulled over for expired license registration tags. His
car was subsequently impounded and a search had to performed because of liability issues. Two
guns were founded in his impounded car and he was arrested for firearms possession charge.
Riley’s phone was subsequently founded and the photos and video were found to be gang
related. The photos, video, ballistic reports all connected the dots to his involvement in the
August 8, 2009 shooting. Separate charges were then charged against him, which included
occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon.
The issue with this case was how the phone evidence was obtained, and if the phone
evidenced violated a person Fourth Amendment? Riley side argued that the phone evidence with
evidence of gang affiliation should be dismissed because there was no warrant to search his
phone. The motion was denied. But, the defense counterclaim with a gang expert that gave
evidence that the shooting could be gang related. The issue with the fourth amendment is
important because even though the phone was search without a warrant. At that moment, Riley
was placed under arrested for possession of a fire gun. The police had a right to search his phone
because he was already placed under arrested and there already was a probable cause established.
He was already arrested and charged.
This was an important case because it made the government consider the search-
incident-to-arrest doctrine legal. The “search incident to arrest”, is when a police can search your
phone (even later) when you get arrested. I didn’t think ideology didn’t impacted this case
because it most of the evidence led to Riley being the suspect of the shooting. The phone
evidence just confirmed the police suspicions.

1. Do you think “search-incident-to-arrest” breaches the fourth amendment?
2. If Riley’s phone evidence were dismissed, would the outcome of this case be different?