Riley v. California
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-132 | Cal. | Apr 29, 2014 | Jun 25, 2014 | 9-0 | Roberts | OT 2013 |
Disclosure: Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in this case at the certiorari stage through the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, but it is not participating in the case at the merits stage.
Holding: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 25, 2014. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Symposium: In Riley v. California, a unanimous Supreme Court sets out Fourth Amendment for digital age (Marc Rotenberg and Alan Butler, June 26, 2014)
- Symposium: The Court starts to catch up with technology (Mason Clutter, June 26, 2014)
- Symposium: Inaugurating the digital Fourth Amendment (Richard M. Re, June 26, 2014)
- Symposium: Surprising unanimity, even more surprising clarity (Adam Gershowitz, June 26, 2014)
- Symposium: A whole lot of Wurie: Information acquisition and the Fourth Amendment (Anthony Barkow Eric Del Pozo, June 26, 2014)
- Get a warrant! Today's cellphone privacy decision in Plain English (Amy Howe, June 25, 2014)
- Opinion analysis: Broad cloak of privacy for cellphones (Lyle Denniston, June 25, 2014)
- A whole new world: Today’s oral arguments in Plain English (Amy Howe, April 29, 2014)
- Argument analysis: Limiting a search? Sure, but how? (Lyle Denniston, April 29, 2014)
- SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Searching cellphones (Stephen Wermiel, April 25, 2014)
- Argument preview: Police and cellphone privacy (Lyle Denniston, April 25, 2014)
- Court to rule on cellphone privacy (Lyle Denniston, January 17, 2014)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, October 23, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Jul 30 2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2013) |
| Aug 12 2013 | Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed. |
| Aug 15 2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| Aug 21 2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013. |
| Aug 30 2013 | Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
| Aug 30 2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. |
| Aug 30 2013 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. |
| Sep 3 2013 | Response Requested . (Due October 3, 2013) |
| Sep 27 2013 | Brief of respondent California in opposition filed. |
| Oct 16 2013 | Reply of petitioner David Leon Riley filed. |
| Nov 20 2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 6, 2013. |
| Dec 3 2013 | Record Requested . |
| Dec 23 2013 | Record received. California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District and San Diego Superior Court (1 box) |
| Dec 31 2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014. |
| Jan 17 2014 | Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether evidence admitted at petitioner's trial was obtained in a search of petitioner's cell phone that violated petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights. |
| Feb 11 2014 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 29, 2014 |
| Feb 18 2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| Feb 19 2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, rece8ved from counsel for the respondent. |
| Mar 3 2014 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| Mar 3 2014 | Brief of petitioner David Leon Riley filed. |
| Mar 7 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law Professors in support of private parties filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Mar 7 2014 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | CIRCULATED. |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amici curiae of American Library Assciation, and The Internet Archive in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology, and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amicus curiae of DKT Liberty Project filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amici curiae of National Press Photographers Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Charles E. MacLean & Adam Lamparello filed. (Distributed) |
| Mar 10 2014 | Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 2 2014 | Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 9 2014 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 9 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 9 2014 | Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed. (Reprinted) (Distributed) |
| Apr 10 2014 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| Apr 18 2014 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| Apr 22 2014 | Reply of petitioner David Leon Riley filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 29 2014 | Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal.; and Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) |
| Jun 25 2014 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED with No. 13-212. |
| Jul 28 2014 | MANDATE ISSUED. |
| Jul 28 2014 | Record returned for Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. |
