JONES v. NAJERA
2:19-cv-04678
| E.D. Pa. | Aug 16, 2022Background
- On Nov. 7, 2017 Detective Frank Najera arrested Martin Jones and seized at least one cell phone, which was held by the Lehigh County Drug Task Force.
- A forensic extraction shows someone accessed Jones’s phone on Jan. 1, 2018 (drafted/deleted a text) — before the written consent form signed on Jan. 10, 2018.
- On Jan. 10 Najera met with Jones and obtained a written consent to search the phone; Bucks County Detective Joshua Mallery had requested Najera obtain that consent and later received the extractions.
- Jones alleges Najera (and possibly Mallery) searched one or two phones without a warrant and that the consent was obtained after the searches; he sued both under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations.
- The court found a genuine dispute that Najera may have searched Jones’s phone before obtaining consent, so Najera’s summary-judgment motion was denied.
- The court granted summary judgment for Mallery because the record contains no evidence of his personal participation in the allegedly unlawful searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Najera searched Jones’s phone before Jan. 10 consent | Najera accessed/extracted phone data on Jan. 1 (before consent), so the search was warrantless and illegal | Najera contends only the phone consented to on Jan. 10 was searched and there was no pre-consent search | Denied Najera’s summary judgment — a reasonable jury could find a pre-consent search occurred |
| Whether Jones’s Jan. 10 consent cures any earlier illegal search | Consent was signed after searches, so it cannot retroactively validate an earlier unlawful search | Defendants argue consent obviates need for warrant | Court: post-search consent does not automatically purge illegality; later consent does not cure an earlier Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether Mallery is liable for the alleged unlawful searches | Mallery participated in directing/receiving the extractions and thus is responsible | Mallery says he only requested Najera obtain consent and received completed extractions; no personal involvement in any alleged illegal search | Granted summary judgment for Mallery — plaintiff failed to show Mallery’s personal involvement |
| Whether reports noting two extractions mean two phones were searched | Jones asserts Najera extracted two phones (supports broader violation) | Defendants say notes reflect two extractions from one phone (physical + SIM) and any suggestion of a second phone is a misunderstanding | Court: dispute exists but not necessary to resolve for Najera claim; admissibility of such reports not decided, but could independently support denying Najera’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrantless searches of cell phones are presumptively unreasonable)
- Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. 292 (2014) (consent can eliminate the need for a warrant)
- United States v. Williams, 898 F.3d 323 (3d Cir. 2018) (cell-phone searches governed by warrant requirement absent exception)
- United States v. Mosley, 454 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2006) (post-seizure consent does not by itself purge prior illegality)
- Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2018) (§1983 liability requires evidence of each defendant’s personal involvement)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
- United States v. Snype, 441 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (attenuation analysis for consent after an illegal seizure)