California Courts Judicial Outreach Riley vs California Classroom

California Courts Judicial Outreach Riley vs. California Classroom Moot Court Can police search your cell phone without a warrant?

California Courts Judicial Outreach If you were responsible for selecting judges in California, what would you look for? • Knowledge • Skills • Disposition/qualities

California Courts Judicial Outreach Judicial Decision Making Judges make decisions based on the law • State and U. S. Constitution • Statutes • Precedent: prior cases • Legal reasoning • Higher court decisions • Code of Ethics – be impartial Other elected officials may make decisions based on: • Needs/desires of their voters • Their own beliefs • Special interest groups • Their political party’s agenda

California Courts Judicial Outreach You be the Judge Today, you will be a justice on the U. S. Supreme Court and decide a real case.

California Courts Judicial Outreach But first, you need to know the US Constitution 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. ”

California Courts Judicial Outreach The Case: Riley vs. California (2014) 1. 2. 3. 4.

California Courts Judicial Outreach Trial Court: Motion to Suppress? A motion to suppress evidence is a request by a defendant that the judge exclude certain evidence from trial

California Courts Judicial Outreach Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches?

California Courts Judicial Outreach The Case continues to move through the courts The CA Court of Appeal (4 th District) affirmed the Superior Courts decision. The CA Supreme Court denied review; Court of Appeal decision stands as final. The case was taken to the U. S. Supreme Court.

California Courts Judicial Outreach Real Case Documents Judicial Outreach

California Courts Judicial Outreach How does the Supreme Court decide? PRECEDENT Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752, a case in 1969, that found that a warrantless search incident to arrest should be: q. Limited to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control q. Where it is justified by the interest in officer safety q. Preventing evidence destruction

California Courts Judicial Outreach Activity: You be the Judge You decide: Should evidence be discounted if obtained from Riley’s cell phone without a warrant? What are arguments for and against?

California Courts Judicial Outreach Arguments against warrantless search of a cell phone • Officer is in no immediate danger from a cell phone; it can’t be used as a weapon • The cell phone can be confiscated by police, so that the arrestee can’t change any evidence on it and there is time then for the police to get a warrant • The nature of the cell phone itself

California Courts Judicial Outreach Arguments for warrantless search of a cell phone • (ii) The United States and California raise concerns about the destruction of evidence, arguing that, even if the cell phone is physically secure, information on the cell phone remains vulnerable to remote wiping and data encryption. • A search of cell phone data might warn officers of an impending danger, e. g. , that the arrestee’s confederates are headed to the scene • Inspecting the contents of an arrestee’s pockets works no substantial additional intrusion on privacy beyond the arrest itself

California Courts Judicial Outreach You Be the Judge Based on ü Facts of the Case ü Constitution ü Precedent

California Courts Judicial Outreach