The Supreme Court has moved to answer the question of whether a search incident to an arrest on a cell phone violates an individual right. Lower courts are divided in the decision. The two cases debated by the Supreme Court are Riley v. California and Wurie v. United States. In Riley v. California, David Riley was arrested for expired tags and driving with a suspended license, which led to his vehicle being impounded. Once impounded, it is San Diego Police policy to document the contents of the car where they found firearms. They also found a smartphone where they searched it twice without a warrant and found photos of the arrested person posing in front of a vehicle recently identified in a shooting. From there, they conducted a ballistics analysis of the weapons found in his car and matched those used during the shooting drive. The photo was used as evidence to prosecute David Riley (Riley, 2009). The California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. In the case of Wurie v. United States, Brima Wurie was arrested on suspicion of selling drugs from her vehicle; from there, the police took him into custody. Where they went through his call log when they noticed the phone was receiving calls repeatedly. Officers traced the number to a location different from the address Wurie had given them. After obtaining a search warrant, they discovered crack cocaine, marijuana, cash and guns. The 1st U.S. Court of Appeals rejected evidence found in the search, saying the search incident to arrest exception did not allow a warrantless search of cell phone data seized from 'a person arrested. Were the rights of David Riley and Brima Wurie violated? Right now law enforcement is allowed to search anything... middle of paper ... that there should be guidelines when it comes to searching a cell phone following a shutdown. It should not be a free for all when officers get their hands on a cell phone because it contains a lot of personal information about an individual. As noted previously, Kerr (2013) rightly argues that computer-like devices should have their own set of 4th Amendment rules, just like motor vehicles. It would establish guidelines for law enforcement, helping them decide when they can or cannot search a cell phone. Works Cited Arizona v. Glove 556 US 332 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdfKerr,O. (2013). Journal of Law & Public Policy: Forward-looking accounting for technological change. Vol 36 (No.2) 404-408 United States v. Robinson 414 US 218 (1973) Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/218/case.html