Courts

 

RILEY V. CALIFORNIA:

CAN YOU HEAR THE EQUILIBRIUM NOW?

 

This article reviews the implications of the ruling in Riley V. California in relation to achieving a balance between individual rights as outlined in the Fourth Amendment and police power. In this case, Riley as the petitioner was stopped for violating traffic rules and he was eventually arrested on the basis of weapon charges. An officer seized his phone and accessed the information therein, which led to the state charging him connection to shooting that had occurred earlier. The petitioner moved to suppress the evidence the police had obtained off his shell, arguing that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The argument was rejected by trial court and Riley was convicted on every account (Ziv, 2015).

The article begs the question of how the protection guaranteed in Fourth Amendment against unfair searches and seizures will in an age that is becoming increasingly digital. The police are already barred from searching mobile phones in search incident if they do not have a warrant. This raises the question of whether the technology should be allowed to stall investigation while avoiding violating individual rights in the Fourth Amendment. Where technology is changing rapidly, the question arises on whether the courts will consistently achieve the balance between personal rights in a democratic environment and the police power to carry out searches and arrest relate to crime (Lamparello, 2015). Privacy is a basic element in democracy and a Christian view would consider that a democratic environment is necessary to uphold individual rights. Police power should not be extended to violation of basic rights in the process of searching evidence.

 

Article : Warren, J. E. CIVIL PROCEDURE—CLASS ACTIONS—SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CERTIFIES CLASS ACTION AGAINST CITY POLICE FOR SUSPICIONLESS STOPS AND FRISKS OF BLACKS AND LATINOS.—Floyd v. City of New York, 82 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (West) 833 (SDNY 2012).

 

Floyd v. City of New York

This article discusses class actions certified in Floyd v. City of New York in case of arbitrary stopping and frisking of Latinos and blacks by city police. The article highlights the fact that a certified a given class in a case that requested injunctive and declaratory relief against the police department for targeting Latino and black residents unlawfully (Warren, 2012).  The balance between liberty and safety and related argument is discussed, where advocates claimed that communities that are faced with violence from within are the best placed to determine outcomes than court judges. As such the people in the community the community are the ones who can assess the flexibility required in policies.

The court should only intervene in assessing the flexibility of such policies if they are not consistent with various democratic values in the Fourth Amendment. In the above case the community leaders the input of the locals was not considered to look into what the residents wanted. Whereas the majority of the white residents supported the stop-and-frisk approach, it had little approval from the minority group who the major target of the police department (Warren, 2012). It is considered as violating the liberty provided for in the Fourth Amendment that guarantee liberty in a democratic society (Clark, 2015). The court while trying to achieve flexibility in application of law may stand in the way of finding the balance between police power and personal liberty. From a Christian point of view , the  decision would be based on whether  the court’s ruling embrace the role of the community in fighting violence and the possibility of discrimination  arising from the  program. 

 

References

Ziv, M. (2015). Riley v. California: Can You Hear the Equilibrium Now. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 30, 1283.

Lamparello, A. (2015). RILEY V. CALIFORNIA: A PYRRHIC VICTORY FOR PRIVACY?. Journal Of Law, Technology & Policy, 2015(2), 393.

Clark, D. (2015). "Stop and Frisk" Under Floyd v. City of New York: The Difficulty of Proving a Fourteenth Amendment Violation. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, 25(3), 341.

Warren, J. E. CIVIL PROCEDURE—CLASS ACTIONS—SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CERTIFIES CLASS ACTION AGAINST CITY POLICE FOR SUSPICIONLESS STOPS AND FRISKS OF BLACKS AND LATINOS.—Floyd v. City of New York, 82 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (West) 833 (SDNY 2012).