Commonwealth v. Stem
96 A.3d 407
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- On Aug. 14, 2012, Allegheny Township officer arrested Adam Stem for alleged criminal trespass; a cellphone was found on his person and seized incident to arrest.
- Officer Uncapher, without consent or a warrant, powered on Stem’s phone at the station and opened the photo app, viewing an image he believed to be child pornography.
- After observing the image, the officer obtained a warrant; the executed warrant recovered 17 photographs that formed the basis for child pornography charges.
- Stem moved to suppress the photographs as the product of a warrantless search of his cellphone; the trial court granted suppression.
- The Commonwealth appealed, raising whether the warrantless search of a lawfully seized cellphone incident to arrest was lawful.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed the issue in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California and affirmed suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Stem's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers may search the digital data on a cellphone seized incident to arrest without a warrant | Searching the phone was permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (similar to searching a purse or physical records) | Warrantless search of phone data violates the Fourth Amendment; phone searches require a warrant | Court held Riley controls: officers generally must obtain a warrant before searching cellphone data seized incident to arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cellphone searches incident to arrest generally require a warrant)
- Wurie v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (companion case affirming warrant requirement for cellphone data)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (scope of search incident to arrest limited to arrestee and area within immediate control)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (upholding search incident to a lawful custodial arrest for certain physical items)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- United States v. Kirschenblatt, 16 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1926) (distinguishing searching pockets from ransacking a house; cited for privacy distinction)