Fawdry v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6756
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fawdry appeals a conviction for five counts of possession of child sexual imagery; he challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from his cell phone.
- Police discovered the images after arresting Fawdry on an extrajudicial warrant for sexual battery of a child; the arrest occurred at his home.
- Officer Fontenot conducted a search of Fawdry’s person, found a cell phone, and opened it after noting Fawdry’s nervousness and potential for weapons.
- Opening the phone revealed a wallpaper image of a prepubescent girl; a subsequent search of media files uncovered child pornography.
- The trial court denied suppression; Fawdry entered a no contest plea reserving appeal on the suppression ruling.
- The First District Court of Appeal held the search fell within the search-incident-to-arrest exception and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell phone search incident to arrest complies with the Fourth Amendment | Fawdry argues container/Smith analysis limits allowability. | State relies on Robinson/Finley to permit inspection of items on arrestee. | Search was permissible under Robinson as a valid search incident to arrest. |
| Whether a cell phone is treated as a closed container for Belton-based search | Smith rejects container analogy for modern cell phones. | State favors Finley’s container approach. | Court rejects Smith; cell phone viewed as container-like for search purposes, but still permissible here under Robinson. |
| Effect of Gant on the Belton framework for searches related to a cell phone at arrest | Gant limits container searches to crime-related evidence in vehicles; not applicable here. | Gant does not require vehicle-context refinement; no impact on cell phone search at home. | Gant does not alter the per se reasonableness of a search incident to a lawful arrest of a phone found on the arrestee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits search incident to arrest to suspect and immediate area)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (per se reasonable search incident to arrest; no need to justify a priori)
- Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1982) (permits search of personal effects and containers on arrestee)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (container search of automobile passenger area and containers therein)
- Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (cell phone treated as closed container; search incident to arrest permissible)
- Smith, 920 N.E.2d 953 (Ohio 2009) (cell phones not treated as closed containers due to vast information capacity)
- Smallwood v. State, 61 So.3d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (Robinson-based framework governs inspection of items carried by arrestee)
- Brye v. State, 927 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (two-step approach to suppress motions; deference to trial court)
- Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1997) (principles of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla. 2001) (two-step de novo review for suppression determinations)