<P> Riley's lawyer moved to suppress all the evidence the officers had obtained during the search of his cell phone on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights . The trial court rejected this argument and held that the search was legitimate under the SITA doctrine . Riley was convicted . On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment based on the recent California Supreme Court decision People v. Diaz . In Diaz, the court held that the Fourth Amendment "search - incident - to - arrest" doctrine permits the police to conduct a full exploratory search of a cell phone (even if it is conducted later and at a different location) whenever the phone is found near the suspect at the time of arrest . </P> <P> The Defendant in Diaz sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court . While his petition was pending the California Legislature passed a bill requiring police to obtain a warrant before searching the contents of any "portable electronic devices". The court denied the petition after the State brought this bill to its attention . One week later, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the bill, stating that "courts are better suited" to decide this issue of Fourth Amendment law . </P> <P> The California Supreme Court held that seizure of Riley's cell phone was lawful due to the fact that the seizure occurred during a "search incident to arrest". The court reasoned that historical precedent had been established from several cases brought to the U.S. Supreme Court; which that have allowed officers to seize objects under an arrestee's control and perform searches of those objects without warrant for the purpose of preserving evidence . In doing so, the court applied the case People v. Diaz, which held that the unwarranted search and seizure of a cell phone on Diaz's person was valid . The Court, with Diaz in mind, contended that only arrest is required for a valid search of an arrestee's person and belongings . The court then proceeded to apply United States v. Edwards to hold that the search was valid despite the fact that it had occurred 90 minutes after arrest . In the Edwards case, an arrestee's clothing was seized 10 hours after arrest in order to preserve evidence (paint chips) that might be present on the clothes . Given these cases, the state court concluded that the search and seizure of Riley's cell phone was valid . </P> <P> The case of Riley v. California as heard before the Supreme Court combined two cases, Riley itself and United States v. Wurie . Petitioner Riley argued, based on the ruling of People v. Diaz, the digital contents of a smartphone do not threaten the safety of police officers . Therefore, limiting searches to circumstances where officers have a reasonable belief of evidence of a crime still violates constitutional rights . </P>

Us supreme court to settle cell phone privacy