Talk:Riley v. California

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contested deletion[edit]

Re: Speedy deletion nomination of Riley v. California

This article should not be speedy deleted as having no substantive content, because... it is being used for a class project and is being worked on as we speak --Bchapman0603 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts, joined unanimously[edit]

Thats not the truth. Alito did NOT join to Roberts opinion (see official slip). Hence, it is not unanimous. So change that. 46.70.30.215 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: Please pay attention to this, the info in Infobox is wrongful. 46.70.30.215 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I have changed the infobox (though you could have fixed that as well as the page is not protected). postdlf (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate citation[edit]

In this paragraph,

"Later ballistic testing confirmed that the handguns were the weapons used in a gangland murder that had taken place a few weeks previously, for which Riley had been a suspect. Because of the discovery of the concealed and loaded handguns, along with gang paraphernalia, during the vehicle search, police placed Riley under arrest and searched his cell phone without a warrant."

there is a citation that links to the opinion of the supreme court on this case. Nowhere in that document is it mentioned that the order of events was as such. Defendant Riley was under arrest due to his possession of undisclosed firearms, the connection to the shooting was discovered AFTER his phone was unlawfully searched.

On page two of the opinion, the real charge can be found: Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§12025(a)(1), 12031(a)(1) (West 2009), "(Penal Code § 12025.) Any person who carries a loaded firearm on his/her person in a public place may be guilty of a felony if the handgun is not registered to that person in the Department of Justice's Automated Firearms System. (Penal Code § 12031.)" 137.229.79.232 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]