TIMOTHY ALAN MOATS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Barbera, Aug. 31, 2017,
Seizures- Cell Phone- Police may hold a cell phone seized pursuant to a lawful arrest for as long as is reasonably necessary to seek a search warrant
Affirming CoSA opinion
Companion case with Stevenson
(Concur- Adkins- Good faith applies, but SSW should include temporal limitation)
The Court’s gone an interesting direction, taking the 90% stat used to establish a heightened privacy concern and using it to establish pc
Dear dicta, “we offer a few thoughts for judges…”
Facts:
In 2015, Moats (18 y/o) and 3 other teenagers were riding in Moats’ car through Garrett County. Moats gave marijuana and Suboxone to the other three and they went to a party. At the party, one of the teens 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 after Moats was released, the investigating sergeant still had Moats’ phone. The investigator 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.
The affidavit noted: “Your Affiant knows through his training and experience as a Criminal Investigator that individuals who participate in such crimes communicate via cellular telephones, via text messages, calls, e-mails etc.”
The warrant was requested to:
“(A) Seize and cause to be completely examined by Your Affiant or, if necessary, a competent forensic cellular phone examiner, any and all electronic data processing and storage devices located in the above-described cellular telephone. Any phone call records being sent or received on these devices, any text mail “messages” sent or received on these devices, any stored, un-stored, unsorted phone numbers on these devices, any photographs stored on these devices, any external memory devices used on these devices in or incidental to the mentioned aforesaid crimes, as defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland, amended and revised; and
(B) Seize and cause to be completely examined by Your Affiant or, if necessary, a competent forensic cellular telephone[ ] examiner[,] all media storage devices, including but not limited to e-mail content, text messages, photos and/or financial records and/or any and all account information that would relate to the aforesaid crimes, as defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland[.]”
A District Court judge signed and issued the search warrant.
A search of the phone was conducted and located on the phone were sexually explicit photographs and video of Moats’ 15 y/o girlfriend.
Moats was charged with several counts of possession of child pornography.
Moats challenged the search, but was convicted. Moats appealed, but the Court of Special Appeals rejected his arguments.
Moats then requested review by the Court of Appeals, arguing that the police illegally kept his phone after he was released and there was not probable cause supporting the warrant.
Held:
The Court of Appeals disagreed.
Cellular Phones – The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment “permits the police automatically to seize a cell phone found incident to a lawful arrest, secure it, and ‘eliminate[] any potential physical threats’ the cell phone may hold, but, once such concerns are satisfied, the police may only search the data on a cell phone with a warrant.”
Note: The “physical threats” discussed here relate to signals sent to/from the phone
Cell Phones- Police may hold a cell phone seized pursuant to a lawful arrest for as long as is reasonably necessary to seek a search warrant
From the case: Three days was not considered unreasonable here by the Court, but it did warn that unnecessary delay could become an issue in a future case
Cell Phones- Search of a cell phone incident to arrest is no longer permitted absent an exigency
Mobile containers- It is reasonable for the police, when armed with probable cause to believe a mobile container (such as a box) holds contraband or evidence of a crime, to seize the container without a warrant. “But, unless exigent circumstances allow for an immediate search, the police may not search the container without a search warrant”
Search warrant- The Fourth Amendment contains a “strong preference” for searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Therefore, the existence of probable cause supporting a warrant is entitled to “great deference” by a reviewing court.
Search warrant-
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.
From the Case: Here, the affiant’s training and experience led him to conclude that CDS distributors “communicate via cellular telephones.”
Nexus- Cell phone- Even without specific training, an affidavit could draw on common sense to demonstrate that a crime involving two participants (such as drug dealing) would involve communication and that this communication could be found on the suspect’s cell phone given the prevalence of cell-phone communication in today’s society.
From the Case: The Court warned that some crimes, such as traffic offenses, are unlikely to provide enough of a connection to a cell-phone to support a warrant. The Court further warned that “Even in cases where the connection between the suspected crime and the cell phone is more likely to be established, the lack of factual detail or other circumstances might countenance against a finding of probable cause. The affiant’s professed training and experience might fall short of demonstrating to the judge’s satisfaction that the affiant’s prediction can be relied upon in determining whether the evidence sought will be found in the cell phone the affiant wants to search.”