Gomez, Gilberto
WR-83,668-01
| Tex. App. | Aug 24, 2015Background
- Granville (a student) was arrested for a Class C misdemeanor; his cell phone was taken during booking and placed in the jail property room.
- Officer Harrell (not the arresting officer) retrieved the phone from the jail property room later that day, turned it on without a warrant, searched its contents, found a photo allegedly showing improper photography, and used it to charge Granville with a felony.
- Granville moved to suppress the phone contents on Fourth Amendment grounds; the trial judge granted the motion, finding Granville retained a subjective, reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone even while it was in jail property.
- The State appealed; the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review on whether law enforcement may activate and search an inventoried cellular phone with or without probable cause.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: a citizen does not lose a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a cell phone merely because it is stored in a jail property room; officers must obtain a warrant to activate/search the phone’s contents absent exigent circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Granville) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does an arrestee retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a cell phone stored in jail property? | Arrested person loses expectation of privacy in personal effects inventoried at booking; property-room custody nullifies privacy. | A cell phone stores highly personal data; placing it in property room does not eliminate a reasonable expectation of privacy in its contents. | Held for Granville: arrestee retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in phone contents stored in jail property. |
| May an officer activate and search an inventoried phone without a warrant if the officer has probable cause? | If officer has probable cause, he may search items in jail property room; property-room custody removes heightened protection. | Even with probable cause, activation/search of phone contents requires a warrant because phone is a potent repository of private data. | Held for Granville: activation/search of inventoried phone contents requires a warrant absent exigent circumstances. |
| Is a warrantless search of a cell phone justified as a search incident to arrest when the phone is in police custody and the search occurs later? | Search-incident-to-arrest covers personal items associated with arrestee and may permit phone searches. | Search-incident-to-arrest is limited to contemporaneous searches to protect officer safety or prevent evidence destruction; delayed/property-room searches are not covered. | Held: search-incident-to-arrest generally requires contemporaneity; a delayed/property-room activation is not justified by that doctrine. |
| Does the institutional need to inventory and secure arrestee property eliminate Fourth Amendment protection for inventoried items? | Jail security and inventory justify broad searches of inventoried property. | Inventory custody does not erase legitimate privacy interests in certain items (e.g., cell phones); institutional needs do not permit general rummaging. | Held for Granville: diminished but not extinguished rights; inventory custody does not authorize general searches of phone contents without warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Granville, 373 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2012) (trial‑court suppression affirmed by court of appeals)
- Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (diminished expectation of privacy in inventoried clothing; not dispositive for all property)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on search incident to arrest; vehicle‑search principles applied to related contexts)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (post‑arrest searches of property under exclusive police control cannot be justified as incident to arrest)
- United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (recognized limited exception for postarrest seizure/search of effects under particular facts)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to arrest doctrine and its traditional justifications)
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (warrantless search of arrestee's cell phone violated Fourth Amendment; cell phones are highly data‑rich)
- United States v. Flores‑Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (modern cell phone likened to a diary writ large; heightened privacy concerns)