Should Cell Phones Be Enforced With Mobile Devices

There is no doubt that cell phones, in this day and age, are a huge part of most Americans’ everyday life. Cell phones hold an abundance of various personal information and keepsakes such as pictures, videos, messages, and much more. With the extensive amount of information that these mobile devices hold, they may sometimes be helpful to reveal and trace criminal activity. Access to evidence of criminal activity can be very valuable to the police, but this access generally requires a warrant. The clear difference between cell phones and regular physical items that are subject to search and seizure in an arrest does not allow the usual â€Å"search incident to arrest† doctrine to be enforced with mobile devices (â€Å"Riley v. California†). The†¦show more content†¦Pictures were found that showed David Riley with a vehicle that had likely been part of an earlier shooting. Videos were also found of guys sparring, and others shouting â€Å"Blood† as encouragement. After these findings, Riley was charged for being associated with the previous shooting, shooting at a car that held occupants, assault using a semiautomatic weapon, and attempted murder. Riley attempted to have all evidence from his phone dropped, claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were infringed. The court rejected his argument and Riley was charged and sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison (â€Å"Riley v. California†). The officer unreasonably searched and seized Riley’s cell phone without a warrant to obtain the incriminating information. The Fourth Amendment states â€Å"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, again 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.† The officer should have only searched Riley’s device with a warrant because no critical circumstance provided the officer to do so (â€Å"Fourth Amendment†). Inspecting the device’s physical condition