AJ 014 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Blood Test, Hot Pursuit, Ant-Zen

• School: College of The Sequoias
• Department: Administration of Justice (AJ)
• Course: AJ 014
• Professor: ahle

Document Summary

Warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. In chimel v. california (1969), the court ruled that if police arrest someone, they may search the body of the person without a warrant and. "the area into which he might reach" in order to protect material evidence or the officers" safety. That is the origin of the notion that police may search a suspect, and the area immediately surrounding the person, without a warrant during a lawful arrest in accordance with the sita doctrine [search incident to arrest]. Lower courts were in dispute on whether the fourth amendment allows the police to search the digital contents of such a phone, without first getting a warrant. Riley v. california, 573 u. s. __ (2014) is a landmark[1] united states supreme. Courtcase in which the court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.