778 S.E.2d 144
Va. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police surveilled an apartment after receiving a tip that a package of marijuana would be delivered; officers observed paraphernalia and smelled marijuana when they knocked.
- Three men were detained in the apartment; the resident consented to a search and officers found marijuana in a green case.
- Detective Fogarty confiscated Rivera’s cell phone during an interview and, without a warrant, read text messages that referenced marijuana sales.
- Rivera made incriminating admissions before and after Fogarty viewed the phone; Fogarty never obtained a warrant to search the device.
- Rivera moved to suppress the phone evidence and subsequent statements; trial court delayed ruling pending Riley, ultimately denied suppression, and Rivera entered conditional guilty pleas and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riley v. California applied retroactively and thus made the warrantless phone search unconstitutional | Riley applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review; the search violated the Fourth Amendment | Commonwealth conceded Riley applied and the search violated the Fourth Amendment | Court: Riley applies retroactively; the search violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the exclusionary rule requires suppression of evidence obtained from the warrantless phone search | Suppression required because search unconstitutional under Riley | Exclusionary rule should not apply because officers acted in objectively reasonable reliance on existing precedent (good-faith) | Court: Exclusionary rule does not apply; evidence admissible |
| Whether Robinson and other precedent provided a reasonable good-faith basis for searching a phone incident to arrest | Rivera: Robinson did not properly extend to modern cell phones, so no binding authority supported the search | Commonwealth: Robinson was the controlling Supreme Court authority on searches incident to arrest, and persuasive circuit/state authority supported cell-phone searches pre-Riley | Court: Officers could reasonably rely on Robinson and persuasive authority; conduct objectively reasonable |
| Whether deterrence justifies exclusion given police culpability | Rivera: suppression necessary to vindicate Fourth Amendment rights | Commonwealth: officers acted without deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard—so deterrence rationale weak | Court: Deterrence benefits do not outweigh costs; suppression would not deter reasonable conduct, so exclusion not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (police generally must obtain a warrant to search cell phones incident to arrest)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (exclusionary rule inapplicable where officers reasonably relied on binding precedent)
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (bright-line rule permitting full search of person incident to lawful custodial arrest)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on warrant)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule applies only when police conduct is sufficiently culpable to further deterrence)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits searches of vehicles incident to arrest; changed prior Belton scope)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively to cases on direct review)