The Supreme Court has stepped forward to answer the question of whether Search to Arrest Cellphone Incident violates an individual right. Lower courts are divided in the decision. The two cases heard by the Supreme Court are Riley v. California and Wurie v. United States. In Riley vs. California, involved David Riley who was stopped for expired license plates and driving with a suspended license, which led to his vehicle being impounded. Once seized, San Diego Police policy is to document the contents of the car in which firearms were found. They also found a smartphone, where they searched it twice without a warrant and found photos of the arrestee posing in front of the vehicle that had recently been identified during a drive-by shooting. From there they performed ballistic analysis on the weapons found in his car and compared the gun used during the shooting. The photo was used as evidence to prosecute David Riley (Riley, 2009). The California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. In Wurie v. United States, Brima Wurie was arrested on charges of selling narcotics from her vehicle; from there the police took him into custody. Where, through the call log, they noticed that the phone was repeatedly receiving calls. Officers traced the number to a different location than the address Wurie had given them. After obtaining a search warrant they discovered crack cocaine, marijuana, cash and firearms. The U.S. First Court of Appeals rejected the evidence found in the search, saying the exception between a search incident and an arrest does not authorize a warrantless search of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee. Have the rights of David Riley and Brima Wurie been violated? Right now law enforcement can search for anything... middle of paper... there should be some guidelines when it comes to searching a cell phone following an arrest investigation. It should not be a free-for-all when officers get their hands on a cell phone as the cell phone contains a lot of personal information of an individual. As stated previously, Kerr (2013) makes a valid point that computer-like devices should have their own set of 4th Amendment rules, just as motor vehicles do. This would establish guidelines for law enforcement helping them decide when they can or cannot search a cell phone. Works Cited Arizona v. Gant 556 US 332 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdfKerr,O. (2013). Journal of Law & Public Policy: Preventive accounting for technological change. Vol 36 (No.2) 404-408United States v. Robinson 414 US 218 (1973) Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/218/case.html