Final answer:
The question is about the legal penalties for 16-17 year olds using a cell phone, likely in the context of driving. The Riley v. California case emphasizes cell phone privacy, while actual penalties for using a cell phone while driving vary by state. Social norms also guide cell phone etiquette in different contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question appears to be seeking clarification on the legal consequences for 16-17 year olds using a cell phone, presumably while driving. In the context of law, specifically within the United States, the Riley v. California ruling indicates that police must have a warrant to search a cell phone when an individual is arrested, which reflects the importance and privacy associated with cell phones. However, the question doesn't provide enough specificity to determine what kind of 'conviction' is being referred to. If it regards driving while using a cell phone, consequences vary by state but often include fines and possible points on the driver's license. It's important to note that for many traffic violations, including cell phone use while driving, penalties may vary depending on the state or region.
Moreover, the number who used cell phone and had a violation and the number in study who had a violation in the last year could be essential in a statistical analysis, perhaps in understanding the correlation between cell phone use while driving and traffic violations. Such data could be used to support policy decisions regarding youth and cell phone use while driving. In social contexts, discussions on cell phone etiquette, like whether to use cell phones at the dining table or in class, are guided by mores and morality, differentiating between social customs and moral rules.