David Leon Riley belonged to the Lincoln Park gang of San Diego, California. On August 2, 2009, he and others opened fire on a rival gang member driving past them. The shooters then got into Riley's car and drove away. On August 22, 2009, the Police pulled Riley over driving a different car. His car had an expired license registration tags. Due to his license being suspended. The police had the car impounded. Before a car is impounded, police are required to perform an inventory search to confirm that the vehicle has all its components at the time of seizure, to protect against liability claims in the future, and to discover hidden contraband. While search the vehicle, police located two guns and subsequently arrested Riley for possession of the firearms. Riley had his cell phone in his pocket when he was arrested, so a gang unit detective analyzed files on his phone. Seeing that Riley was making gang signs and other gang related activity. Riley was subsequently…show more content… Califfornia (1969). In this case, the court ruled that if the police arrest someone, they have the right to search the body of the person without a warrant in "the area into which he might reach" in order to protect physical evidence and for the safety of the officers. This was all good until cell phones came into play. Courts were unsure about what to do with cases when it came to the digital contents search for an arrest. Lower courts were indifferent on whether or not the 4th amendment permitted offices to search the contents of a cell phone without a warrant. Cell phones were becoming very powerful and held important information. It was time for an in-depth review and a serious decision. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that police obtained from his cell phone, but the motion was denied. However, the California Supreme Court used a case called People v. Diaz as a precedent that granted the approval of a warrantless search of cell phone data incident to
