Dane Sayles, Alias Bradley Harper v. State of Tennessee, E2018-00141-CCA-R3-PC

On April 28, 2008, police stopped a rental car; officers found ~2–3 kilos of cocaine hidden under the back seat and cash; co-defendant Marcus Harper (driver) and petitioner Dane Sayles (passenger) were arrested.
Officers seized two cell phones (a Nokia and a Blackberry) and later extracted text messages that the State used at trial.
Sayles was convicted of possession of 300+ grams of cocaine for resale and sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to 40 years.
On direct appeal Sayles challenged admission of the phone contents; appellate court upheld the searches (either incident to arrest or by consent).
After his conviction became final, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Riley v. California (2014), holding that warrants are generally required to search cell phones incident to arrest. Sayles filed a post-conviction petition arguing counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain interlocutory review of the denial of suppression and that Riley should apply retroactively.
The post-conviction court denied relief; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Riley announced a new rule but does not apply retroactively in post-conviction proceedings under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-122 and Tennessee precedent.

Issue	Sayles' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Riley v. California must be applied retroactively to Sayles' final conviction (and thus whether counsel was ineffective for not securing interlocutory review/suppression under Riley)	Riley announced a new constitutional rule that must be applied retroactively to post-conviction cases, so Sayles is entitled to relief	Riley does not apply retroactively under Tennessee law; counsel’s failure to seek interlocutory review does not warrant relief	Riley announced a new rule but it is not retroactive under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-122 (not a rule placing conduct beyond criminal law nor a “watershed” rule); post-conviction relief denied and conviction affirmed

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (generally requires a warrant to search cell phones seized incident to arrest)
Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (establishes Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-122 framework for retroactivity in post-conviction proceedings)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (standard for retroactivity: new rules are not applied retroactively except watershed rules of criminal procedure)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent is an exception to warrant requirement)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (example of a new substantive rule placing conduct beyond criminal law)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (example of a new substantive rule placing conduct beyond criminal law)