Order Suppressing Search of Cell Phone Vacated by the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s finding that the search warrant for the defendant’s cell phone was overbroad but left open the issue regarding the alleged warrantless seizure of the phone. The Court reversed part of the order, vacated another part of it, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Background

The defendant was accused of molesting his nephew and the police had reason to believe that the incident was recorded on his cell phone. While the lead detective went to the residence to investigate, another officer went to apply for a search warrant for the defendant’s phone.

In the affidavit submitted for the search warrant, the officer stated that in addition to the video recording of the alleged molestation incident, the officer “knows that other files of interest related to the creation and storage of video and images may exist in the form of cache files, database entries, and other log type files created during the normal operation of the Apple iPhone.”

When the officer met with the magistrate judge to apply for the search warrant, he provided additional oral testimony. The magistrate asked for more information regarding what the officer wished to search for. The officer gave the magistrate the date and time of the alleged recorded incident and stated that he was seeking “to retrieve the phone and therefore the data on it – the video – present on the device.”

Based on the affidavit and the additional testimony of the officer, the magistrate issued the warrant which authorized the seizure and search of the defendant’s phone.

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

At the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress, there were two different versions of how the defendant’s phone was seized. The lead detective testified that he did not seize the phone until after the search warrant was obtained. However, the defendant’s mother testified that the detective threatened to destroy her home if she did not give him the phone and that she only did so because she was scared. The detective denied threatening anyone.

The trial court ultimately sided with the mother’s testimony and granted the motion to suppress, finding that the cell phone was seized without a warrant or valid consent. Moreover, the court found that the search warrant itself was fatally overbroad in that it did not limit the search of the phone “to the date and time of the alleged crime.”

State’s Arguments on Appeal

First, the Court of Appeals agreed with the State that the search warrant was not overbroad. It was held that the warrant sufficiently limited the scope of the officers’ search to the video of the incident in question. The Court noted that the officer’s oral testimony to the magistrate which specifically set forth the date and time of the recorded incident provided parameters for what evidence could be searched for on the phone.

The State also argued that even if the lead detective’s seizure of the phone was unlawful, the evidence should still not be suppressed due to the inevitable discovery and independent source doctrines. Both of these exceptions could potentially save the evidence from suppression if it can be shown either that the evidence could have been seized lawfully in another manner or would have been discovered anyway during the course of a lawful search.

The Court of Appeals could not make a ruling on these claims since the trial court did not make any factual findings regarding either of these exceptions. Therefore, the appeals court remanded the case back to the trial court for it to make findings as to whether either of these two exceptions would apply.

As a result, the Court reversed the ruling regarding the validity of the search warrant but has left open whether the phone’s unlawful seizure would still render the evidence inadmissible. That issue will be determined by the trial court on remand.