search incident to arrest
TRANSCRIPT
NCJRL.org
Search Incident to Arrest
from Gant to cell phones
Priscilla M. GranthamSr. Research Counsel
National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law
Copyright © 2011 National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law
Overview:• SIA as exception to warrant requirement• Search of the Person
scope Timing
• Search of Arrestee’s possessions• Search of vehicles incident to arrest• Probable cause based vehicle searches• Inventory searches• Treatment of cell phones in analysis
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________�_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________�_____________________________________________________________________
Traditional Doctrine
Chimel (1969)
Police arrested Chimel in his home – burglary of coin shop
Searched entire home,Attic, garage, andworkshop
3
1 2x
x
x
x
X
x
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). Chimel involved a warrantless search of defendant’s home, incident to his arrest there, for the fruits of a burglary. Officers searched entire three bedroom home, including the attic, garage and workshop. Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When an arrest is made, it is rsble for officer to search person of arrestee and areas into which arrestee might reach and retrieve weapons or destroy evidence.
officer safetypreservation of evidence
NCJRL.org
Bright line rule:
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Chimel gives us the traditional search incident to arrest doctrine. The Court stated that the person of an arrestee, as well as the area into which an arrestee might reach, may be searched so as to deprive him of weapons by which he could resist arrest or escape and also to prevent the destruction or concealment of evidence. The twin rationales of officer safety and preservation of evidence do not support a search of any room other than the one in which an arrest occurs, nor does it support the search of closed or concealed areas in the room in which the arrest occurred. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969). Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Robinson arrested for driving w/ revoked license
• Officer searched his person (SIA)
• Felt object in shirt pocket – removed cigarette pack
• Opened cigarette pack – found heroin
Search of PersonU.S. v. Robinson
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Robinson’s bright-line rule:
Incident to lawful arrest, officer can search arrestee’s person and open any containers located thereon.
Full search of the person is not only an exception to warrant requirement of 4/A, but is also a rsble search.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In United States v. Robinson, the Court addressed the question of whether police could open closed containers located on an arrestees person. The Court held that pursuant to the full custodial arrest, the warrantless search of defendant’s person, inspection of crumpled cigarette package found on his person and the seizure of heroin capsules found in the package were permissible, notwithstanding that the officer did not indicate any subjective fear of the defendant, nor did he suspect the defendant was armed. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 236 (1973). Only needed a showing that search was pursuant to a legal custodial arrest ; "It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a “reasonable” search . . .” United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973). The Court distinguished the search incident to a lawful custodial arrest from a Terry stop which is limited in scope to a frisk of the outer layer of clothing for weapons. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234 (1973). This case established the bright line rule that an officer can search an arrestee’s person and open any containers thereon automatically, incident to a lawful arrest. Notes: __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________
SIA as to Persons: Delayed SearchesU.S. v. Edwards (1974)
• Seemed to abandon contemporaneous limit for searches of person.
• Permitted s/ of arrestee’s clothing at jail 10 hours after arrest.
• “searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at time of arrest may legally be conducted later when accused arrives at place of detention.”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Edwards was lawfully arrested for attempting to break into post office. He was taken to the local jail and placed in a cell. The next morning, Edwards was given a change of clothes and the clothing he had been wearing since the time of arrest was taken from him and held as evidence. “It is . . . plain that searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at the time of the arrest may legally be conducted later when the accused arrives at the place of detention.” United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 803 (1974). Once accused is lawfully arrested and in custody, effects in his possession that were subject to search at time of arrest may be lawfully seized and searched without a warrant, even though substantial period of time has elapsed between the arrest, administrative procedures, etc. and the time that the property was taken for use as evidence. United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 807 (1974). Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SIA: Arrestee’s Possessions
• Respondents arrested at train station
• Respondents, auto, footlocker transported to Fed bldg
• Footlocker searched by agents 1.5 hours after arrest – contained marijuana
U.S. v. Chadwick (1977)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• “Potential dangers lurking in all custodial arrests.”
• Officer need not calculate probability that weapons / destructible evidence will be found.
• Officer may make warrantless search of items w/in immediate control area.
NCJRL.org
Analysis: Rationale behind SIA:
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1977). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chadwick
Search of luggage or other property not immediately associated with the person of arrestee is not incident to that arrest if:
• Property w/in exclusive control of officers, &• No danger arrestee can gain access to seize
weapon / destroy evidence.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
FN distinguishing Edwards: “Unlike searches of the person, searches of possessions within an arrestee’s immediate control cannot be justified by any reduced expectations of privacy caused by the arrest. Respondent’s privacy interest in the contents of the footlocker was not eliminated simply because they were under arrest.” United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 16, n. 10. Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Dubious Jurisprudence of Containers…Subsequent lower court case law:
• Immediately associated• Wallets• Purses• Backpacks
• Not closely associated• Luggage
How do we categorize cell phones?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Courts have upheld delayed warrantless searches of wallets, (United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1980)); purses, (People v. Decker, 176 Cal. App. 3d 1247, 1252 (1986)); address books, (United States v. Rodriguez, 995 F.2d 776, 777-78 (7th Cir. 1983)); and pagers (United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 536 (N.D. Cal. 1993)). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SIA: VehiclesPre-Gant
• Police searched passenger compartment of arrestee’s vehicle after occupants exited vehicle.
• D. argued passenger space not in his immediate vicinity (grab space) when search occurred.
New York v. Belton (1981)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Belton, officer pulled over a speeding vehicle, and after asking to see the driver’s license and registration discovered that neither the driver nor the other three passengers owned the vehicle or were related to the owner. Officer smelled burnt marijuana and saw envelope on floor marked “Supergold.” Officer ordered the four men out of the car and placed them under arrest . The officer patted down each of the men and split them up so they would not be able to physically touch each other. Officer picked up Supergold envelope and found it contained marijuana. He then searched each of the four former occupants of the automobile as well as the passenger compartment of the car where, on the back seat, he found a jacket belonging to Belton. He unzipped one of the pockets of the jacket and discovered cocaine. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 455-56 (1981). Notes: _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scope of Vehicle Search under Belton:
Contemporaneously with lawful custodial arrest of vehicle’s occupant, officer may search entire passenger compartment of car and any containers (open or closed) located therein.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 459 (1981). Container is defined as any object capable of holding another object. “It thus includes closed or open glove compartments, consoles, or other receptacles located anywhere within the passenger compartment, as well as luggage, boxes, bags, clothing, and the like.” New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 461, n.4 (1981). Notes: _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Permissible Scope of SIA
Person: (Robinson) “unqualified authority,“ andreach and grab area (Chimel) from which arrestee could access weapons or destroy evidence.
Vehicles: (Belton) entire passenger compartment and any open or closed container therein
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
New Approach for Automobiles:Arizona v. Gant
• Tip that drugs being sold from house
• Cops knocked, Gant answers says owner not there
• Cops discover outstanding warrant for Gant’s arrest - DWSL
• Cops returned & arrested Gant - locked him in squad car
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009). Notes: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gant Argued:1. Belton did not authorize search of his auto
once he was arrested and handcuffed in back of squad car; posed no threat to officer safety
2. Arrested for traffic offense, for which no evidence could be found in vehicle.
When asked at suppression hearing why search was conducted, officer responded, “Because the
law says we can do it.”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gant’s Two New Holdings:
1. No search of vehicle incident to occupant’s arrest once arrestee is secured and cannot access interior of vehicle
2. Circumstances unique to auto context justify a search when there is reason to believe that evidence of offense of arrest might be in vehicle.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Supreme Court’s decision in Gant, significantly limits a police officer’s ability to conduct a search incident to arrest when the person arrested was in a vehicle. Gant does not affect an officer’s ability to search the person being arrested, rather, it sets forth the permissible scope of the search of the area surrounding the arrestee in situations where the arrestee was a recent occupant of a vehicle. Restated, Gant holds that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest. In Gant, neither the possibility of arrestee’s access nor the likelihood of discovering offense-related evidence authorized the search . There were five officers and three arrestees, all of whom had been handcuffed and secured in separate patrol cars before the search of Gant’s car; Gant was clearly not within reaching distance of his vehicle. No evidentiary basis for the search; Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license – an offense for which police could not expect to find evidence in the passenger compartment of his car. Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rationales Underlying Gant’s Holdings:
1. Protects Privacy Interests
Belton authorized police to search every purse, briefcase, or other container w/in passenger compartment whenever an individual is caught (and arrested) for committing a traffic offense –
“creates a serious & recurring threat to the privacy of countless individuals."
Presenter
Presentation Notes
While a motorist’s privacy interest in his automobile is less substantial than in his home; it is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection. Belton searches authorize police to search not only the passenger compartment, but also every purse, briefcase or container located in the passenger compartment, even if there is no basis for believing that evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle. Belton, in effect, gives police “unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects” the concern at the very core of the Fourth Amendment. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1720 (2009). Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Belton’s bright-line rule re: searches of automobiles incident to lawful custodial arrest of its occupants does not provide guidance to officers:
Does not set forth protocols for searches; cases not uniformly decided
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Belton articulated the scope of a search of an automobile incident to a lawful custodial arrest of its occupants. The Court fashioned a rule, "easily applied, and predictably enforced"; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973); in order to provide clear guidance to police officers "who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront." New York v. Belton, supra, 458, quoting Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979). Belton established this standard based upon a generalization that the interior of a car is always within the immediate control of an arrestee who has recently been in the car.�State v. Badgett, 512 A.2d 160, 168 (Conn. 1986). Belton was an attempt to eliminate on the scene confusion of police officers with respect to the scope of their right to search an automobile; the competing interests of law enforcement and personal privacy are better served if precise rules of police conduct are established which may be routinely followed in certain situations.�State v. Badgett, 512 A.2d 160, 168 (Conn. 1986). Courts are at odds as to what is required in order for a search incident to arrest to comport with Belton, for example, how close in time must the arrest and the search must be? Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct 1710, 1720 (2009). Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
When is Search “Contemporaneous?”
How close in time must arrest and search be?
• Search commencing 5 minutes after arrestee removed from scene – OK
• Search that continued after arrestee removed from scene – OK
• Search commencing after arrestee was removed from scene - Invalid
• Search that continued after arrestee removed from scene – Invalid
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Search commencing five minutes after arrestee was removed from the scene upheld. United States v. McLaughlin, 170 F.3d 889, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1999). United States v. Snook, 88 F.3d 605, 608 (8th Cir. 1996). Search that continued after arrestee removed from the scene upheld. United States v. Doward, 41 F.3d 789, 793 (1st Cir. 1994). Search commencing after arrestee was removed from scene held to be invalid. United States v. Lugo, 978 F.2d 631 (10th Cir. 1992). Defendant was no longer at the scene when search of his truck began; he was handcuffed and sitting in the back seat of a patrol car. There was obviously no threat that he might reach in his vehicle and grab a weapon or destroy evidence. Thus, the rationale for a search incident to arrest had evaporated. Search was not contemporaneous - it was remote in time and in place in that defendant and his truck were not in the same location. United States v. Lugo, 978 F.2d 631, 634, 635 (10th Cir. 1992). The rationale underlying the Belton rule is that "articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, if not inevitably, within 'the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary item.'" New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)). It follows, therefore, that a warrantless search incident to arrest is not valid if it is "remote in time or place from the arrest," Chimel, 395 U.S. at 764 (quoting Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), such that "no exigency exists." United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 15 (1977).� Search that continued after arrestee removed from the scene held to be invalid. State v. Badgett, 512 A.2d 160, 169 (Conn. 1986). Although Belton appears to have removed the necessity for factual analysis in each case of the actual likelihood that a person arrested may be able to obtain a weapon or destroy evidence contained in the passenger compartment of his vehicle, we construe it to allow a warrantless search of a vehicle incident to a lawful custodial arrest only while the arrestee remains at the scene of the arrest at the time the search is conducted. �State v. Badgett, 512 A.2d 160, 169 (Conn. 1986). Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What about Spatial Proximity?
No agreement as to how close arrestee must be to his vehicle when approached by officer.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Issues of spatial proximity: Belton not applicable when arrestee was approached by police after he had exited vehicle and reached his residence. United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008). Belton applicable when arrestee was apprehended 50 feet from vehicle. Rainey V. Commonwealth, 197 S.W. 3d 89, 94-95 (Ky. 2006). Belton applicable when arrestee was apprehended inside an auto repair shop, and his car was parked outside. Black v. State, 810 N.E. 2d 713, 716 (Ind. 2004). Notes: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Belton not necessary for officers’ safety / evidentiary concerns
Michigan v. Long:May search passenger compartment if rsblesusp. that individual, whether or not the arrestee, is dangerous & might access vehicle and obtain weapons
U.S. v. RossPC based vehicle search; may search any area of auto
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Michigan v. Long permits an officer to search a vehicle’s passenger compartment when he has reasonable suspicion that an individual, whether or not the arrestee, is dangerous and might access the vehicle to gain immediate control of weapons Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983). United States v. Ross authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which evidence might be found in cases where there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-21 (1982). These exceptions together ensure that officers may search an automobile when genuine safety or evidentiary concerns encountered during the arrest of a vehicle’s recent occupant justify a search. Construing Belton broadly to allow vehicle searches incident to any arrest would provide no purpose except to provide a police entitlement, and it is anathema to the Fourth Amendment to permit a warrantless search on that basis. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1721 (2009). Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________
SIA and Digital Evidence Containers:
Does 4/A allow warrantless search of cell phone contents when it is seized incident to a valid arrest?
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Split:• U.S. v. Ortiz (7th Cir. 1996)
Upholding retrieval of info. from pager
• U.S. v. Finley (5th Cir. 2007)
Upholding search of cell phone recovered from arrestee’s pocket
• U.S. v. Murphy (4th Cir. 2009)
Phone “on arrestee.”Need for preservation of evidenceRelied on Finley & Oritz.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007). As part of a drug investigation, police arrested Finley and seized the cell phone from his pocket. Agents took Finley to another location where they were conducting a search warrant. While interviewing Finley, one of the agents searched through the phone’s call records and text messages, which referred to drug use and trafficking. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Chadwick was inapplicable to the Finley search; the cell phone was on his person at the time of the arrest, whereas Chadwick concerned the search of “property not immediately associated with [his] person.” The court in Finley also noted that, despite the fact that police had moved Finley, the search of the cell phone was still substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and therefore was permissible. United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 260 n.7. (5th Cir. 2007). See also, United States v. Santillan, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1102-03 (D. Ariz. 2008); United States v. Deans, 549 F. Supp 2d 1085, 1093-94 (D. Minn. 2008); United States v. Mercado-Nava, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1278-79 (D. Kan. 2007). In these cases, the defendants were arrested for drug-related activity when their electronic devices were searched. The courts noted that the devices may have been used to communicate with others involved in the illegal activity, therefore, there was a reasonable probability that evidence of the arrestee’s crime would be stored on the device. United States v. Oritz, 84 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 1996). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
People v. Diaz
• Diaz arrested after controlled buy of narcotics• Phone “on his person”• Phone seized an hour later at police station• Phone searched during interrogation – 30 min
later
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
People v. Diaz, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 215 (Ct. App. 2008). Diaz was arrested after participating in a controlled buy of narcotics. At the time of arrest, Diaz had “on his person” a small amount of marijuana and a cell phone. The phone was not seized at the time of arrest , but an hour or so later after he was taken to the police station. During Diaz’s interrogation, which occurs approximately thirty minutes after arriving at the station, the officer accesses the phone’s text message folder and retrieves an incriminating message (“6 4 80”). When confronted with this information Diaz confessed. Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Held:
Cell phone immediately associated w/ arrestee (on his person at time of arrest); delayed search permissible under Edwards.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
People v. Diaz, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 215 (Ct. App. 2008), aff’d , No. S166600, slip op. at 8 (Super. Ct. Cal. Jan. 3, 2011). Relying on Chadwick, Diaz argued that the warrantless search of his cell phone 90 minutes after his arrest violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant must be obtained for delayed searches of possessions within an arrestees immediate control. A cell phone, Diaz contended, should not be classified as an item closely associated with the person of an arrestee, because they are “no more likely to be inside a person’s pocket than inside a briefcase, backpack, or purse, or on a car seat or table, or plugged into a power source, or stashed inside any manner of separate bags or carrying containers.” People v. Diaz, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 215, 216 (Ct. App. 2008), aff’d , No. S166600, slip op. at 8 (Super. Ct. Cal. Jan. 3, 2011). Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• D. Arrested in his home – drug charge• Officers allowed him to to get dressed• D. said he wanted to wear pants located on
floor• Officer searched pockets – found cell phone• Seized phone incident to arrest
Could officer search the phone?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Gerardo Rodriguez Salgado, LEXSEE 2010 US Dist. LEXIS 77266 (N.D. Ga. 2010). Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Pants entered “grab area” searchable zone.
• Officers could search pants incident to arrest and seize the phone – an object not on D.’sperson
• Phone (arrestee’s psnl ppty) was in exclusive control of officer, but
• Court held warrantless search of data supported by exigent circumstances; data could be lost
U.S. v. Gerardo Rodriguez Salgado (N.D. Ga. 2010)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
But…Court in U.S. v. LaSalle held that search of D’s cell phone was not incident to arrest when time between arrest and search was between 2 to 4 hours later
Ct held Edwards only applies to LaSalle’s person or his clothing - not to his cell phone.
Search of cell phone not incident to arrest b/c not contemporaneous in time or place.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. LaSalle, 2007 WL 1390820 (D. Hawai’i). The Government argued that the search of the cell phones was a valid warrantless search as an incident to the Defendant’s arrest. Citing Edwards, the government contended that a search is incident to arrest as long as it occurs before the administrative processes relating to arrest and custody have been completing. The court, however, rejected this argument. On the other hand, courts have upheld delayed warrantless searches of of wallets, (United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938, 944 (9th Cir. 1980)); purses, (People v. Decker, 176 Cal. App. 3d 1247, 1252 (1986)); address books, (United States v. Rodriguez, 995 F.2d 776, 777-78 (7th Cir. 1983)); and pagers (United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 536 (N.D. Cal. 1993)). Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Wall IV (S.D. Fla 2008)
Cell phones used during U/C drug sting search occurred at police station
Rejects Finley• S/ not contemporaneous w/ arrest • Search of info stored on cell phone
analogous to search of sealed letter -which requires warrant
Rejection of SIA to Cell Phones:
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Wall IV, 2008 WL 5381412 (S.D. Fla 2008). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. McGhee (D. Neb. 2009)
Jan. 2009 – D arrested pursuant to warrant on drug related charges for acts occurring in 2008.
Officer removed cell phone from D’s person at time of arrest & conducted a search.
Lawful SIA?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. McGhee, 2009 WL 2424104 (D. Neb.) Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
…ample justification for search of arrestees’s person & area w/in immediate control - area from which he could access weapon, or destroy evidence
NCJRL.org
Ct. looked to rationale for SIA stated in Chimel:
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. McGhee, 2009 WL 2424104 (D. Neb.) citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969). Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Held:
No justification for search of D’s cell phone as incident to arrest:
• Cell phone did not pose harm to officers
• Not rsble to believe search of cell phone at time of arrest (1/2009) would produce evidence of crime committed in 3/2008.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. McGhee, 2009 WL 2424104 (D. Neb.). The court held that the officers were not justified in conducting a warrantless search of the defendant’s cell phone incident to his arrest. The court noted that McGhee did have the cell phone within his immediate control (the officer took it from his person) – an area which can be searched incident to arrest under Chimel. However, if Chimel’s twin justifications for the SIA exception are absent, the rule doesn’t apply. United States v. McGhee, 2009 WL 2424104, at *3 (D. Neb.) citing United States v. Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1716 (2009). In analyzing Chimel’s rationale underlying the search incident to arrest exception, the McGhee court found (1) the cell phone did not present a risk of harm to the officers, and (2) no evidence suggested the cell phone contained destructible evidence. As a result, officers were not justified in conducting a warrantless search of defendant’s cell phone as incident to his arrest. United States v. McGhee, 2009 WL 2424104, at *4(D. Neb.). Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Quintana (M.D. Fla. 2009)
D. arrested for DWSL
Officer took phone from D’s pocket & looked through stored info.
Search of D’s cell phone not valid as a SIA:nothing to do w/ preservation of evid of driving w/ suspended license or officer safety – not justified under Chimel
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Quintana, 594 F. Supp 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Defendant was pulled over for speeding. Upon approaching the automobile, the officer noticed a strong odor of raw marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Defendant was arrested when a subsequent check revealed he was driving with a suspended license. At the time of arrest, the officer seized a cell phone from defendant’s pocket and conducted a search of its contents. The court noted that where a defendant is arrested for drug related activity , police may be justified in searching the cell phone for evidence of this crime, even if “the presence of such evidence is improbable.” The court found that the search of the defendant’s cell phone had nothing to do with the preservation of evidence related to the crime of arrest (driving with a suspended license) or with officer safety, and as such, the search was not justified under the twin rationales of Chimel. Officer was, according to the court, searching the cell phone for information relating to the smell of marijuana, not seeking to preserve evidence that Defendant was driving with a suspended license. United States v. Quintana, 594 F. Supp 2d 1291, 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Notes: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rejection of SIA to Cell Phones - cont…
U.S. v. Park (not reported) (N.D. Cal. 2007)
Search of cell phone’s contents not conducted out of concern for officer’s safety or to preserve evidence therefore, SIA exception not applicable.
• Search not contemporaneous w/ arrest as was case in Finley
• Cell phones not “part of the person.”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Park, 2007 WL 1521573 (2007). The court found that, unlike in Finley where the search was substantially contemporaneous with the arrest, the search of Park’s phone was not. The court placed great significance on its classification of cell phones, holding that for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, these devices should be considered possessions within an arrestee’s immediate control and not part of the person. Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
State v. Smith (Supreme Ct. Ohio – 2009)
Ct held: cell phone is NOT closed container for purpose of 4/A analysis
Warrantless search of cell phone data prohibited unless:
• Necessary for officer’s safety, or
• To preserve evidence.NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Smith arrested on drug related charges after responding to a call to his cell phone by police informant attempting to set up a buy . During arrest, police found cell on defendant’s person. Police seized phone, put defendant in police car, then searched phone for evidence. The Court discussed Finley noting that the defendant in that case, unlike the defendant in the case at bar, conceded that a cell phone was analogous to a closed container for the purpose of Fourth Amendment analysis. For this reason, the Supreme Court found that the Finley analysis was not entirely applicable. State v. Smith, 920 N.E.2d 929 (Ohio 2009). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
State v. Smith…
B/c cell phones can store large amounts of private data, their users have a reasonable and justifiable heightened E/P in information they contain.
Because of this, police must obtain a warrant before intruding into the phones contents.
State v. Smith
Presenter
Presentation Notes
After holding that cell phones are not closed containers for the purpose of 4/A analysis, the court discussed how cell phones should be classified under the 4th Amendment, noting that due to their nature cell phones defy easy categorization. The court focused on one’s expectation of privacy, stating that an address book one might carry on one’s person would carry a lower expectation of privacy during a search incident to arrest, while laptop computers are entitled to higher expectations of privacy. The court found that although cell phones cannot be equated with laptop computers, their ability to store large amounts of private data gives their users a reasonable and justifiable expectation of a higher level of privacy in the information they contain. Because of this, police must obtain a warrant before intruding into the phones contents. State v. Smith, 920 N.E.2d 929 (Ohio 2009). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
When is it permissible to search this cell phone?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Search of vehicle incident to arrest –and often upheld when D. arrested on drug charges in sting operation.
Reasonable to believe search of D.’s vehicle would produce evidence of a drug operation.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cell phone in vehicle –(not on arrestee’s person)
• Tracking device on FedEx package
• D. picked up package at hotel
• D. arrested: possession of narcotics
• Officers searched vehicle / found cell phones.
• Reasonable to believe evidence relevant to crime of arrest might be found in vehicle.
Rsble for officers to believe cell phones might contain evidence of drug trafficking.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Reynolds, 2009 WL 1588413 (E.D. Tenn. 2009). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Similar facts:
• Arrest warrant for D. (sting operation – PCP) • Agent sees D. drive away from house• Agent notifies police dept.• D.’s vehicle stopped – D. arrested• Agent arrives at scene of stop – D.
handcuffed in squad car• Agent searches D.’s vehicle, finds cell
phones…What does Gant tell us?
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Hodges, No. 09-40077-04-RDR, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62760, (D. Kan. 2010). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gant :
1. Once D. is secured and cannot access vehicle to obtain weapons, destroy evidence – No search of vehicle incident to arrest; unless
2. It is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to crime of arrest might be found in vehicle
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PC Based Vehicle Searches:
If PC to believe vehicle contains evidence of a crime, any part of vehicle and its contents “that may be capable of concealing the object of the search” may be searched without a warrant.
WY v. Houghton (1999)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
WY v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999). Notes: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PC- Based Vehicle Searches:
What can be searched?Entire vehicle and any contents located within it.
When applicable?• Whether or not occupant of vehicle is
arrested• When there is PC to believe vehicle
contains evidence of a crime
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scope: PC- Based Vehicle Searches:
Defined by object of the search and places where there is PC to believe it may be found.
Timing of searchCan search on the scene or later on at the station.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
United States v. Johns, 499 U.S. 478 (1985). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ajan v. U.S. (E.D. Tenn. 2009)
D. arrested for drunk driving
Search of his person incident to arrest turned up 3 baggies of pills.
Belton search of “passenger compartment of vehicle and any containers therein” yielded cell phone.
Even if Gant prohibits SIA of phone, OK as PC-based auto search.
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Ajan v. United States, 2009 WL 1421183 (E.D. Tenn.) (slip copy) Even if the vehicle search were not permitted incident to Ajan’s arrest, the discovery of pills on his person provided probable cause to search the car for contraband. Whether or not the occupant of a car is arrested, warrantless searches of vehicles are permitted if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. Ajan v. United States, 2009 WL 1421183 at *9 (citing Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 52 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). Notes: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So, inquiry as to digital evidence is:
1. Do police have PC to believe vehicle contains evidence of a crime?
2. If so, any part of vehicle and its contents “that may be capable of concealing object of the search” may be searched w/o warrant
i.e., can officer est. probable cause that:• DEF used cell phone in car to make drug deal• Used GPS device to find location• Event recorders in car ....
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Inventory Searches
• Permits police to thoroughly search vehicles that have been lawfully impounded for any reason.
• Must be pursuant to routine administrative policy.
• Cannot be solely to look for evidence of criminal conduct
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (containers w/in vehicle). Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (arrestee’s bag and containers therein). Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Purposes of Inventory Search:
• Protect owner’s property
• Protect police against false claims for stolen / lost property
• Protect police & others from potential danger
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Permissibility of Inventory Searches-
Two Inquiries:
1) Was original seizure of item rsble?
2) Was inventory properly conducted pursuant to routine administrative policy?
NCJRL.org
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Inventory Searches
• Arguably can not search cell phones, computers, other digital devices that are lawfully seized and subject to inventory
• No reason to retrieve data to protect it
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Flores (S.D. N.Y. 2000)
Don't need to know contents to safeguard
U.S. v. Wall IV (S.D. Fla 2008) (unreported)
Threat of theft concerns cell phone itself, notinformation it stores. No need to document phone numbers, data stored in the memory, etc. pursuant to inventory procedures.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
U.S. v. Flores, 122 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D. N.Y. 2000). U.S. v. Wall, 2008 WL 5381412 (S.D. Fla 2008). (unreported) Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
Recap:• SIA as exception to warrant requirement• Search of the Person
scope Timing
• Search of Arrestee’s possessions• Search of vehicles incident to arrest• Probable cause based vehicle searches• Inventory searches• Treatment of cell phones in analysis
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________�_____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________�_____________________________________________________________________
