People v. Macabeo
1 Cal. 5th 1206
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Late-night stop: Torrance officers stopped Paul Macabeo on a bicycle after he rolled through a stop sign; officers questioned him and had him empty pockets, including handing over his cell phone.
- No arrest at time of phone search: Officers did not place Macabeo under formal arrest before Officer Raymond searched the phone; Macabeo was not on probation despite officer belief.
- Evidence found: Officer located images of underage girls on the phone and then arrested Macabeo for violating Penal Code §311.11(a).
- Trial court and Court of Appeal rulings: Trial court denied suppression relying on People v. Diaz; Court of Appeal affirmed and held the good-faith exception justified admission because Diaz was controlling precedent.
- Supreme Court holding: California Supreme Court reversed, concluding the warrantless phone search was unlawful and the good-faith exception did not apply; ordered suppression of the phone data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers could search cell-phone data without a warrant as incident to arrest | The search was lawful under Diaz and could be validated because officers could have arrested Macabeo for the stop-sign violation, so a search-incident-to-arrest was permitted | The phone search occurred while Macabeo was not under custodial arrest; Riley and related limits mean a warrant was required | Search was unlawful: Macabeo was not under custodial arrest, Diaz does not apply, and Riley requires a warrant for cell-phone data except in exigent circumstances |
| Whether Rawlings permits searching before formal arrest so long as an arrest follows | Rawlings allows searches when probable cause exists and arrest follows quickly, so order of search/arrest is immaterial | Rawlings does not authorize broad searches prior to arrest when the justifications for incident searches are absent (per Chimel, Chadwick, Knowles) | Rawlings is limited; it does not justify the search here because core rationales for incident searches were absent and Knowles controls analogous situations |
| Whether the good-faith exception saves the evidence (officers relied on Diaz) | Officers reasonably relied on then-controlling California precedent (Diaz), so suppression is unwarranted under Leon/Davis | Officer should have known the search was not authorized — state law precluded arrest and the search-incident exception did not apply; reliance was not objectively reasonable | Good-faith exception does not apply: a reasonably well-trained officer would have known the search was unlawful, so deterrence favors exclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell‑phone data subject to heightened privacy interest; warrant generally required to search contents)
- People v. Diaz, 51 Cal.4th 84 (2011) (upheld warrantless phone search incident to custodial arrest)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to lawful custodial arrest; authority to search person)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits on searches incident to arrest; scope tied to safety and evidence-access concerns)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (property in officers’ exclusive control not searchable incident to arrest absent warrant)
- Illinois v. Gates/Edwards discussion — United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (searches of arrestee’s effects incident to arrest; reasonable delay allowed)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (citation in lieu of arrest does not permit full search incident to arrest)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (officer may arrest under Fourth Amendment despite state law limiting arrest; arrest supports search incident to custody)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (post‑search arrest affirmed where admission and probable cause followed search; limited to its facts)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for objectively reasonable reliance on warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception for reliance on binding precedent)
- Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (clerical court errors do not trigger exclusion when officer reasonably relies on court records)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusion inappropriate when database errors are isolated and officer reliance is objectively reasonable)