Riley v. California (13-132)

argument 13-132

Riley v. California

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core Fourth Amendment issue presented in Riley v. California?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case thirteen one thirty two, Riley versus California. Mr. Fisher?

Donald R. Fisher 0:14

Mr Chief Justice, it may it please the court. This case involves applying the core protection of the Fourth Amendment to a new factual circumstance. It has always been the case that an occasion of an arrest did not give the police officers authority to search through the private papers in the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody's house. And that protection should not evaporate more than two hundred years after the founding Because we have the technological development of smartphones that have resulted in people carrying that information in their pockets.

Anthony M. Kennedy 0:46

Uh The principle for why the police can search and see some some objects Uh consider a gun. The arrestee has a gun on his person. And the police take the gun. Uh it's part of the reason for that seizure. To obtain evidence of the crime, or is it just for the safety of the officer and the safety of the community?

Donald R. Fisher 1:10

Well what this court said in Robinson at page two hundred and thirty five is the reasons supporting the authority for a search incident to arrest are the two chamel factors, which are gathering evidence for to prevent to prevent its destruction and officer safety. Now games. What about

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:26

gathering evidence in order to make the crime? For instance, with the gun. Uh could they take fingerprints? Uh the the the the gun is in the police station with the uh arrestee is being booked. A could they take fingerprints? B could they copy the serial number? C, could they see how many shells were left in the chamber? They obviously have to empty it for safety purposes. All for the purpose of building the case, of of of obtaining evidence.

Donald R. Fisher 1:53

Yes, of course that's done every day. Once the gun is in the police off the police department's lawful possession, I think Edward says that they can do all that.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:01

So so if if the proposition then, if the principle then is that some objects that are obtained from the arrestee can be examined in order to build the state's case Is that at least a beginning premise that we can accept in your case, although obviously there are are problems of s the s extent and intrusiveness of the search that are uh are in your case but not in the gun hypothetical.

Donald R. Fisher 2:30

Well, Justice Kennedy, the court has never described that as one of the things. If you want to think about this case the way you thought about the automobile search in Gantt, it would be a beginning premise. But I think you're right that even if that were a beginning premise, it would be only that, a beginning. In footnote nine in Edwards, this court said that any search incident to arrest still has to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's general general reasonableness.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:53

I think you're right. That Gantt is probably the best statement uh in support of the principle that I've uh I've s suggested. And then you might say, well, that's limited to automobiles, and then we're back where we started.

Donald R. Fisher 3:05

Right. And there's important things to understand if you want to start thinking about Gantt, because Both in terms of its history and its modern application, it's dramatically different from what we have here. Well

Samuel A. Alito 3:16

Mr. Fisher, before we do that uh Uh. Uh have you been accurate in what you said about Robinson and about the court's cases in Weeks, which was quoted in Robinson? The court said the right always recognized under English and American law to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. Uh is that historically inaccurate? Do you want us to repudiate that? No,

Donald R. Fisher 3:49

Your Honor. What Weeks said is that you quoted it. Fruits and instrumentalities of the crime have always been something could that could be seized from a person. Now Weeks, of course, as this court said in Robinson itself, was dicta. And there was that historical authority to take fruits and evidence. I'm sorry, fruits and instrumentalities. Did

Unknown 4:09

it say in instrumentalities or evidence? Which did it say? Weeks.

Donald R. Fisher 4:18

Weeks uses the word evidence, but Justice Scalia, because it was not at issue in that case, the the Bishop treatise that you cited in your Thornton concurrence talks about tools and instrumentalities.