Question

as technology changes, the supreme court interprets privacy issues related to new technologies. one example was riley v. california. read the passage about the case. then answer the question below.

in 2009, police performed a routine traffic stop. because the driver, david riley, did not have a drivers license, the police were legally allowed to search the car. they found handguns connected to a recent shooting. police arrested riley and then searched his cell phone without a warrant. the prosecution used evidence collected from his phone to convict him of attempted murder. riley appealed to the supreme court, arguing that a warrantless phone search was illegal.

the supreme court ruled in rileys favor, saying that cell phones are fundamentally different from other personal items because they have the potential to store so much personal information. so, police can only search them without a warrant in an emergency situation, such as to protect an officers safety or to preserve evidence. neither of those criteria applied in rileys case.

what was the main implication of riley v. california?

police officers can only search a phone if it was found directly in the suspects possession.

in almost all cases, searching a cell phone is legal regardless of whether a warrant exists.

law enforcement cannot search cell phones under any circumstances.

in most cases, law enforcement must have a search warrant in order to search a cell phone.

Explanation:

To determine the main implication of Riley v. California, we analyze the court's ruling: the Supreme Court stated police can only search cell phones without a warrant in emergencies. This means for most (non - emergency) cases, a warrant is required.

• The first option is incorrect as the ruling isn't about where the phone was found.
• The second option is wrong because the ruling limits warrantless searches, so searching isn't legal regardless of a warrant.
• The third option is incorrect as the court allows searches in emergencies.
• The fourth option matches the ruling: in most cases (non - emergency), law enforcement needs a warrant to search a cell phone.

Answer:

In most cases, law enforcement must have a search warrant in order to search a cell phone.