816 S.E.2d 769
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Dec. 15, 2014, Victor Mobley’s vehicle collided with another car; two people died. Mobley was charged with reckless driving, two counts of homicide by vehicle, and speeding (prosecution relied on ACM speed data).
- Investigators downloaded data from the vehicle airbag control modules (ACMs/event data recorders) at the crash scene using specialized equipment; the ACM in Mobley’s car recorded pre-deployment speed of 97 mph five seconds before airbag deployment.
- Officers believed a warrant was not required while they were on-scene; the next day they obtained a warrant to seize the ACMs at the impound lot and the ACMs were subsequently placed into evidence storage.
- Mobley moved to suppress the ACM data as an unlawful warrantless search; the trial court denied suppression, finding the data would have inevitably been discovered pursuant to the warrant obtained the next day.
- After a bench trial Mobley was convicted on all counts; he appealed, arguing (inter alia) that a warrant was required to access ACM data and that officers misled the magistrate by not disclosing the prior download.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrant was required to access ACM data at the scene | Mobley: ACM data is private (like cell‑phone contents); warrant required | State: ACM data reveals vehicle operation on public roads and is exposed to public; no warrant needed here | Court: No reasonable expectation of privacy in the ACM data here; warrant not required under these facts |
| Whether magistrate was misled by warrant affidavit omitting prior download | Mobley: Officer omitted that data already had been obtained, misleading magistrate | State: Warrant was for seizure/removal; officers did not rely on the downloaded data to get warrant | Court: Did not reach as dispositive; affirmed on other grounds (no reasonable expectation of privacy) |
| Application of inevitable-discovery doctrine | Mobley: Evidence was illegally obtained and tainted; should be excluded | State: Officers would have obtained a warrant and lawfully retrieved ACM data the next day; evidence would have been inevitably discovered | Court: Agreed as alternative reasoning (concurring opinions): data would have been inevitably discovered via warrant and impound removal |
| Exigent-circumstances or other exceptions | Mobley: Exigent circumstances did not justify warrantless download | State: Officers were on-scene of a fatal crash and routinely downloaded ACM data at scene; resources available | Court: Not necessary to resolve because of no reasonable expectation of privacy and inevitable-discovery holdings; cautioned officers to obtain warrants when practicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell‑phone digital data generally protected; warrant usually required)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation/use of GPS tracking device on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (long‑term cell‑site location records implicate reasonable expectation of privacy; warrant generally required)
- Teal v. State, 282 Ga. 319 (2007) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable; delineates exceptions and suppression standards)
- Bowling v. State, 289 Ga. 881 (2011) (Fourth Amendment standing/expectation of privacy principles)
- People v. Diaz, 213 Cal. App. 4th 743 (2013) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in vehicle event data recording speed/braking)
- State v. Worsham, 227 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (contrasting view: ACM/event data recorder search requires warrant)