Any human effort requires effective communication. In order to convict offenders, communication devices provide the criminal justice system with crucial and frequently unrefutable evidence. It is clear from the first case that Riley's arrest and subsequent confiscation of his mobile phone enabled the victims of a shooting that was the result of a criminal gang's activity to receive justice. The criminal justice system is built on the fundamental principle of seeking retribution for the victims of homicide, so legislation protecting this fundamental principle should be strengthened. Criminal gangs have become a source of increasing concern in American society, and in pursuance to their demise, any evidence that can be employed to confront and ultimately alleviate
them needs to be submitted and considered. Killings as a result of criminal gangs is a top priority in this endeavor.
The second case pursues to the same, with the respondent, Wurie having his phone confiscated, and examined in a bid to find incriminating evidence. The case exhibits that the police officers were able to trace the location of a contact on the phone of the perpetrator to a drug house. Drugs wreak havoc on the welfare of the community, shutting down and persecuting such criminals as Wurie has a significant effect on the integrity and health of society as a whole. This extensively exhibits the ability of the cell phone to be utilized as a tool for good, particularly when used as evidence against those who would seek to perpetuate criminal activity. Pursuing to the case study involving Wurie and Riley, it is clear that cell phones are a critical source of evidence in criminal justice proceedings and as such, the Judiciary of California should affirm and stand by the same.
