Hawkins v. State
307 Ga. App. 253
Ga. Ct. App.2010Background
- Hawkins was arrested for unlawfully attempting to purchase a controlled substance and related offenses.
- An officer received Hawkins's and a related phone’s text messages; Hawkins and the officer texted about buying pills.
- Prior to a planned meeting, the officer surveilled Hawkins, observed her use her phone, and arrested her at the restaurant.
- Hawkins consented to a search; officers searched Hawkins's vehicle and her cell phone, seizing and printing the text messages.
- The suppression motion challenged the warrantless seizure, vehicle search, and extraction of data from the cell phone as unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cell phone search incident to arrest was reasonable | Hawkins: Fourth Amendment violation due to no warrant. | State: Gant allows search for evidence of the crime of arrest. | Yes, search was reasonable under Gant. |
| Whether accessing text messages via another phone violated privacy or wiretap laws | Hawkins: improper interception and consent issues. | Hawkins's role as party to the communication permits access. | No merit; officer participated in the conversation. |
| Whether consent to search encompassed electronic data on the phone | Consent did not expressly include electronic data; not addressed by majority. | Consent extended to officer’s vehicle search and data viewed. | Not necessary to decide; reasoning otherwise supports upholding denial. |
| Whether the cell phone is a traditional container for purposes of search incident to arrest | Cell phone should not be treated as a closed container. | Cell phone is analogized to a container allowing data search. | Cell phone treated as a container; data search permissible to preserve evidence. |
| Standing to challenge the search on behalf of the son | Son's rights potentially violated by interception. | Hawkins lacks standing to assert son's Fourth Amendment rights. | Hawkins lacks standing; not viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established rule on warrantless searches with exceptions)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search incident to arrest limited by circumstances)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of search defined by object; containers exception)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (privacy expectations in objects seized during vehicle searches)
- Brogdon v. State, 287 Ga. 528 (2010) (private papers concept and privacy in electronic data)