An April file photo shows a Supreme Court visitor using his cellphone . A unanimous Supreme Court said Wednesday that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants. (Evan Vucci/AP)
An April file photo shows a Supreme Court visitor using his cellphone . A unanimous Supreme Court said Wednesday that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants. (Evan Vucci/AP)
An April file photo shows a Supreme Court visitor using his cellphone. A unanimous Supreme Court said Wednesday that police may not generally search the cellphones of people they arrest without first getting search warrants. (Evan Vucci/AP)

Tony Perry, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
Maura Dolan, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

WASHINGTON (Los Angeles Times)—When David Riley, a 19-year-old member of San Diego’s Lincoln Park gang, was arrested in August 2009 on suspicion of shooting at a rival gang member, it received little or no public notice.

The same was true when Riley’s first trial ended in a hung jury, and when he was convicted at a second trial of attempted murder and other charges, and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

But now Riley’s name has assumed national legal prominence as one of two cases that led to Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended privacy rights to cellphones, a sweeping ruling for the digital age when information about a person’s entire life can be stored in a mobile device.
READ MORE
###

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

Yes, I would like to receive emails from Washington Informer Newspaper. Sign me up!


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Washington Informer Newspaper, 3117 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Washington, DC, 20032, https://www.washingtoninformer.com. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact