979 N.E.2d 218
Mass.2012Background
- Case concerns a warrantless search incident to arrest of a cellular phone seized from the defendant; a judge suppressed the phone search as not contemporaneous with arrest; Commonwealth appealed interlocutorily; facts show two phones were seized from both arrestees and a detective later accessed a phone's recent call list to identify a relevant number; defendant’s standing to challenge the search is disputed but treated as established for purposes of appeal; court previously addressed in Phifer that a limited scan of a phone’s recent calls may be permissible under the circumstances; underlying issue is whether the limited search was reasonable and within scope of a lawful search incident to arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant had standing to challenge the phone search. | Commonwealth argues defendant lacked standing; Darosa’s phone complicates standing. | Defendant had standing as the phone searched was his. | Defendant has standing for purposes of appeal. |
| Whether the Commonwealth’s appeal was properly before the court and scope of review. | Appeal should cover the merits of suppression denial. | Appeal limited to standing because of procedural posture. | Court reviews the merits; not limited to standing. |
| Whether a warrantless search of the arrestee’s cellular phone can be conducted as a search incident to arrest even if performed later at the police station. | As in Phifer, search may be valid if within permissible scope. | Search conducted post-arrest at station may be unlawful if not contemporaneous. | Search is permissible as a valid search incident to arrest. |
| Scope of the search of the cellular phone. | Very limited search tapping the recent call list could yield relevant evidence. | Overbroad or intrusive search not justified. | Limited one-button access to recent calls is permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Phifer, ante 790 (2012) (Mass. Supreme Judicial Court (2012)) (limited search of phone permissible under facts (Phifer))
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (standard for search incident to arrest of person and items on him)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest)
- Edwards v. United States, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (arrestee searches may occur after arrest at detention site)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 429 Mass. 403 (1999) (Mass. interpretation of searches incident to arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Bowlen, 351 Mass. 655 (1967) (early articulation of arrest-related searches)
- Commonwealth v. Pierre, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 580 (2008) (limitations on searches related to arrest)
- Commonwealth v. DePina, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 842 (2009) (recognition that phones may contain relevant drug-trade evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (2012) (burden regarding standing and related issues)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 461 Mass. 44 (2011) (standing burden on prosecution)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 376 Mass. 885 (1978) (standing and warrantless searches)
- First Justice of the Bristol Div. v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep’t, 438 Mass. 387 (2003) (judicial notice considerations (not controlling here))