Commonwealth v. Fulton, I., Aplt., 179 A.3d 475

In June 2010 Michael Toll was shot; his dying statements and his phone log showed repeated calls with a contact labeled "Jeff" at a specific phone number (the Target Number).
Police recovered a Samsung flip phone from a vehicle where I. Dean Fulton had been sitting; the phone was off when turned over to homicide detectives.
Detective Harkins powered on the flip phone without a warrant, navigated menus to learn its assigned number, monitored incoming calls/texts, and answered a call from Heather Warrington, who identified Fulton as "Lil Jeff" and as the user of the Target Number.
Fulton was convicted of third-degree murder after trial; he moved to suppress the phone-derived evidence but the trial court denied suppression and the Superior Court upheld the conviction, concluding any error was harmless.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the warrantless powering-on and accessing of a cell phone violates Riley/Wurie and the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether admission of the phone-derived evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Warrantless search of cell phone (powering on, accessing number, monitoring calls/texts)	Fulton: any access to phone data required a warrant under Riley/Wurie; powering on and menu navigation were searches.	Commonwealth: obtaining the phone number and answering incoming calls was a minimal intrusion; phone number is public information and not protected like other phone data.	Court held Riley/Wurie requires a warrant to access any information on a cell phone absent an applicable exception; powering on, retrieving the assigned number, and monitoring/answering calls were warrantless searches that violated the Fourth Amendment.
Admissibility / harmless-error of evidence derived from illegal search (Warrington's ID/testimony and phone number)	Fulton: all evidence derived from the illegal searches was fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed; any admission was harmful and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Story.	Commonwealth: any error was harmless — the phone evidence was cumulative of other proof (dying declaration, witness statements) and did not contribute to the verdict.	Court held the phone number, discovery of Warrington, her statements and trial testimony were fruits of the illegal search and should have been suppressed; admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the untainted evidence was not uncontradicted or overwhelming under Story.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (searching digital content of a cell phone generally requires a warrant)
United States v. Wurie, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (same; consolidated with Riley)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits of an unlawful search/seizure are inadmissible)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
Commonwealth v. Story, 383 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1978) (Pennsylvania applies Chapman standard; error is harmless only if appellate court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the verdict; "overwhelming" proof must be uncontradicted)
United States v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978) (analysis for admitting live-witness testimony discovered via unlawful search; consider witness willingness and independence of testimony)
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (search occurs when police intrude on constitutionally protected area without permission)
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987) (even small intrusions to reveal concealed information constitute a search)