Legal Opinion

United States v. Michael Lustig

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 29, 2016No. 14-50549PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Concurrence by Judge WATFORD

OPINION

FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge:

The United States Supreme Court held in Riley v. California, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014), that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before they may search an arrestee’s cell phone. Approximately two years before that decision, an officer arresting Michael Lustig conducted warrantless searches, incident to the arrest, of cell phones found in Lustig’s pockets. We must determine whether pre-Riley precedent provided a reasonable basis to believe such searches were constitutional.…

2Cases cited57 opinions

  1. Miller v. GammieCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Florida v. JardinesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Riley v. Cal. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
  4. People v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. People v. DeVaughnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977

52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. United States v. Miguel CanoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
  2. United States v. JobCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  3. State v. LaRosa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
  4. United States v. Anthony BusterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2022
  5. United States v. Malik NgumeziCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API