Commonwealth v. White
475 Mass. 583
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Feb 21, 2010: an armed robbery-homicide was committed by multiple perpetrators; investigation focused on Onyx White, then 16.
- Feb 24, 2010: school security policy led to seizure by school administrators of White’s pay-as-you-go Samsung/Sprint cell phone; police, without a warrant and lacking information that the phone was used in the crime, instructed the school to turn the phone over and police seized it to prevent destruction.
- Police logged the phone into evidence, placed it in a bag to prevent remote access, and did not search it at that time; detectives continued other investigative tasks (interviews, grand jury work, five other warrants, and work on other homicides).
- April 21, 2010: a witness reported White had previously photographed robbery proceeds with his cell phone; May 3, 2010: police obtained a warrant and searched the phone, finding a photograph relevant to the case.
- White was indicted; he moved to suppress the phone evidence as the initial seizure lacked probable cause and the 68‑day delay before obtaining a warrant was unreasonable. The Superior Court granted suppression; the Commonwealth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless seizure of the phone was supported by probable cause | Probable cause existed because police had reason to suspect White and, from experience, cell phones commonly contain co‑conspirator communications | No particularized information tied the phone to the crime; officer opinion alone is insufficient to establish nexus | Seizure not supported: officer opinion that phones often contain evidence is not enough for probable cause |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure | Seizure justified to prevent destruction and obtaining a warrant was impracticable given risk and investigative demands | No contemporaneous particularized facts showing an exigency; exigency cannot be based on hindsight | Court did not reach exigency because seizure lacked probable cause |
| Whether 68‑day delay before seeking warrant was reasonable | Delay was justified by investigation complexity, other duties, and limited possessory interest in a pay‑as‑you‑go phone | Delay unreasonable because police must prioritize obtaining a warrant after a warrantless seizure | Delay was unreasonable: prosecution failed to show police diligence in obtaining the warrant |
| Whether evidence found on the phone is admissible despite earlier unlawful seizure | Search warrant cured any defect; later probable cause validates search | Fruit of unlawful seizure; evidence must be suppressed unless prosecution proves an applicable exception | Evidence suppressed: search was fruit of unlawful seizure and delay; Commonwealth didn’t meet its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Anthony, 451 Mass. 59 (2008) (officer opinion alone insufficient to supply nexus for searching computer‑like devices)
- Commonwealth v. Pina, 453 Mass. 438 (2009) (practical experience without particularized information does not create probable cause to search a phone)
- Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102 (2009) (probable cause requires particularized link between evidence sought and place to be searched)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cell phones implicate significant privacy interests; they are akin to computers)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (warrantless seizures reasonable at inception may become unreasonable by virtue of duration)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (rejects arguments that would unduly broaden warrant exceptions)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (reasonableness balancing test for seizures and consideration of intrusion vs. governmental interest)
- Burgard v. United States, 675 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2012) (delay may be unreasonable; police must diligently pursue a warrant)