Commonwealth v. Wright
99 A.3d 565
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On July 1–2, 2012 two people were found shot to death; police obtained an arrest warrant for Joshua Wright based on a witness (Brandy Clark). Wright was arrested at his mother’s home early morning July 2.
- Wright was in underwear; officers dressed him in shorts and T‑shirt. The trial court credited testimony that a cell phone was on the nightstand next to the bed (mother’s testimony), not on Wright’s person (officers’ testimony).
- Officers seized the phone without a warrant and later obtained a warrant to search its contents; the battery was found removed and lying next to the phone.
- Wright moved to suppress the phone and its contents; the trial court granted the motion, concluding the seizure was unlawful because the phone’s incriminating nature was not immediately apparent.
- Commonwealth appealed under Pa. R.A.P. 311(d), arguing the plain view doctrine (and exigent‑circumstances rationale) justified the warrantless seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plain view justified warrantless seizure of the cell phone | Seizure valid under plain view because officers were lawfully present, phone was in plain sight, phone likely contained incriminating call/text data (battery removed suggested evasion) | Phone was on nightstand (not within reach), officers lacked articulable facts tying the phone to the crime; seizure was mere conjecture | Court affirmed suppression: plain view did not apply because incriminating nature was not immediately apparent; seizure unlawful |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified seizure to prevent deletion | Phone could contain easily deleted evidence; removed battery suggested attempt to evade detection, supporting exigency | Exigent circumstances require probable cause to believe phone contains incriminating evidence; there was no such probable cause here | Court held exigency argument fails because there was no probable cause to seize the phone |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McEnany, 667 A.2d 1143 (Pa. Super. 1995) (plain‑view seizure of cell phone upheld where police had information tying phone use to the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 988 A.2d 649 (Pa. 2010) (cell phone in plain view may be seized because phones can contain leads about contacts/timelines relevant to a murder)
- Commonwealth v. Ellis, 662 A.2d 1043 (Pa. 1995) (seizure of a tool was justified where facts made it reasonably likely the tool was used in the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 14 A.3d 89 (Pa. 2011) (officers must rely on articulable facts—not mere hunches—to justify search/seizure)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones contain vast personal data and warrantless searches of their digital content are presumptively unconstitutional; discussed here for privacy context)