240 A.3d 575
Pa.2020Background
- Police responded to an anonymous 911 call reporting shots at a Pittsburgh apartment; upon approach they smelled burning marijuana and conducted a protective sweep. Five people were detained. Officers observed two bricks of heroin in plain view and recovered three stolen firearms; all five were arrested. Two cell phones were recovered from Johnson incident to arrest.
- A subsequent apartment search warrant (same morning) produced 717 stamp bags of heroin and additional cell phones. Over four months later officers applied for and obtained a warrant to search Johnson’s two cell phones for broad categories of digital data (calls, texts, GPS, photos, internet history, etc.).
- The warrant affidavit described the officers’ narcotics experience and contained a general assertion that drug traffickers regularly use cell phones, but it did not allege facts linking Johnson (beyond his presence in the apartment and possession of two phones) to the drugs or weapons.
- Johnson moved to suppress the phone evidence as unsupported by probable cause and as overbroad; the suppression court and Superior Court denied relief. Johnson appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which granted review on the overbreadth question.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the warrant lacked probable cause to search Johnson’s phones because the affidavit failed to supply a nexus between Johnson’s phones and the criminal items; therefore suppression should have been granted and the Superior Court’s judgment was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search Johnson’s cell phones | Affidavit contains only that Johnson was a guest where drugs/guns were found; presence alone doesn’t establish a nexus between his phones and criminal activity. | Presence in apartment where large quantity of drugs and firearms were found, plus that Johnson had multiple phones, gave a fair probability his phones contained evidence of narcotics activity. | No probable cause: affidavit lacked particularized facts linking Johnson or his phones to the contraband; presence alone insufficient. |
| Overbreadth of the warrant (search scope) | Warrant authorized an essentially unlimited search of phones (all data, history, GPS, many categories) and was therefore overbroad. | Broad digital categories were reasonably tailored because narcotics evidence can be stored in many phone locations; officers’ expertise justified broad search. | Court did not reach a comparative overbreadth resolution because the warrant failed for lack of probable cause; suppression ordered on that ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fulton, 179 A.3d 475 (Pa. 2018) (warrant required to search cell phones seized incident to arrest)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (search-incident-to-arrest doctrine does not justify warrantless cell-phone searches)
- Commonwealth v. Grossman, 555 A.2d 896 (Pa. 1989) (warrant must describe items to be seized "as nearly as may be"; particularity linked to probable cause)
- Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1927) (prohibition on general searches; particularity requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Waltson, 724 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1998) (Article I, §8 requires specificity and probable cause for warrants)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 764 A.2d 532 (Pa. 2001) (reviewing court must ensure issuing authority had substantial basis for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Matthews, 285 A.2d 510 (Pa. 1971) (when exact description impossible, describe class of items as nearly as possible)