Mobley v. State
307 Ga. 59
Ga.2019Background
- December 15, 2014: Mobley, driving a 2014 Dodge Charger, collided with a Corvette; both occupants of the Corvette died.
- At the crash scene an investigator entered the Charger, connected a crash data retrieval (CDR) device to the airbag control module (ACM) data port, and downloaded event data (including vehicle speed ~100 mph) without a warrant.
- The next day another investigator applied for and obtained a warrant to seize the ACMs; no further data was downloaded after the warrant.
- Mobley moved to suppress the warrantless ACM download under the Fourth Amendment and OCGA § 17-5-30; the trial court denied suppression on inevitable discovery grounds and convicted Mobley after a stipulated bench trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision (one judge saying no expectation of privacy; two judges invoking inevitable discovery). The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless downloading of ACM data was a Fourth Amendment search/seizure | Mobley: entering the vehicle and accessing the ACM to obtain data was a search | State: no reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicular operation data, so not a search | The download was a search that implicated the Fourth Amendment (trespass/modern Katz analysis) |
| Whether the warrantless search was justified by established exceptions (automobile/exigent) | Mobley: no exception applies; warrants required | State: automobile exception or exigent circumstances justified on‑scene download | Neither automobile nor exigent‑circumstances exceptions applied on this record (vehicle in police custody/not readily mobile; no proof of imminent data loss) |
| Whether OCGA § 17-5-30 bars judicial exceptions to the exclusionary rule (e.g., inevitable discovery or good‑faith) | Mobley: § 17-5-30 precludes any exceptions to suppression (relying on Gary) | State: § 17-5-30 is procedural and does not categorically foreclose judicial exceptions | Gary’s sweeping reasoning disavowed except as to good‑faith reliance on warrants; § 17-5-30 is procedural and does not categorically bar exceptions to the exclusionary rule |
| Whether the inevitable discovery doctrine saved the unlawfully obtained ACM data | Mobley: evidence would not have been inevitably discovered | State: a warrant obtained the next day made discovery inevitable | Inevitable discovery not met: prosecution failed to show a reasonable probability lawful means were being actively pursued before the illegal download |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (search may be shown by common‑law trespassory test and Katz augmentation)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. (cell‑site and modern digital‑data privacy principles)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (physical intrusion onto effects can be a search)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (warrant preference and probable‑cause standard context)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (origin of exclusionary rule)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (application of exclusionary rule to states)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception discussed and distinguished)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good‑faith defense limited to reliance on binding appellate precedent)
- Gary v. State, 262 Ga. 573 (Georgia precedent addressing § 17‑5‑30; limited and distinguished in this opinion)
- Taylor v. State, 274 Ga. 269 (standard for inevitable discovery in Georgia)
- United States v. Delva, 922 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.) (discussing automobile‑exception mobility and warrants)