Riley v. California
E965450
UNEXPLORED
Riley v. California is a landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Riley v. California canonical | 3 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T12141890 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Riley v. California Context triple: [Jeffrey L. Fisher, notableCase, Riley v. California]
-
A.
Gilbert v. California
Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
B.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
C.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
D.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Riley v. California Target entity description: Riley v. California is a landmark 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching digital information on a cell phone seized during an arrest.
-
A.
Gilbert v. California
Gilbert v. California is a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held a defendant’s post-indictment lineup identification without counsel present violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
-
B.
Giles v. California
Giles v. California is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the Confrontation Clause by holding that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only if the defendant intended to prevent that witness from testifying.
-
C.
Griffin v. California
Griffin v. California is a landmark 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that prosecutors and judges may not comment on a criminal defendant’s failure to testify, as this violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
-
D.
Edwards v. California
Edwards v. California is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down a California law restricting the bringing of indigent persons into the state, holding that such limits on interstate movement violated the Commerce Clause.
-
E.
Rochin v. California
Rochin v. California is a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court case that held evidence obtained by methods that "shock the conscience," such as forcibly pumping a suspect’s stomach, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.