TIMOTHY ALAN MOATS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Berger, Oct. 25, 2016,
SSW – Cellular Phone – 2-day delay between seizing cellular phone incident to arrest and obtaining search warrant was reasonable to prevent destruction of evidence while the warrant was sought.

Affirmed by COA

Facts: Moats (18 y/o) and 3 other teenagers took drugs distributed by Moats and then went to a party where one of them was sexually assaulted. During the ensuing investigation, Moats admitted to detectives that he had provided drugs to the others in the car.
An arrest warrant was obtained for Moats for CDS Distribution and search incident to arrest his cellular phone was seized. Moats made bail, but his phone was not returned to him.
Two days later, the investigating detective applied for and received a search warrant for the phone seeking evidence related to CDS Distribution and the sexual assault that had occurred at the party.
Located on the phone were sexually explicit photographs and video of Moats’ 15 y/o girlfriend.
Moats was charged with possession of child pornography and convicted.
Cellular Phones – Following Riley v. California, an officer may not search a cellular phone incident to arrest. The officer must obtain a warrant for the phone unless another exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Evidence – Cellular Phone- The Court noted, “it is clear that individuals use their cell phones to document all kinds of criminal behavior on a rather regular basis and that data recovered from cellular phones is frequently admitted as evidence of guilt in criminal trials.”
Nexus – There was a nexus between the phone and the crime where it was in the sole possession of Moats, who had already confessed to CDS distribution. As the Court noted, “it was reasonable to infer that the phone belonged to Moats and that he personally utilized it to conduct his business and personal affairs.”
Nexus – The training and experience of the affiant can assist in proving the nexus between a crime and the location where evidence can be sought. In this case, the affiant’s training and experience led him to conclude that CDS distributors “communicate via cellular telephones.”