2014 COA 128
Colo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance; case remanded for further proceedings.
- Before trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone; suppression hearing held.
- Car stop yielded electronic scales and a cocaine-containing pill bottle; two passengers claimed the bottle belonged to defendant.
- Police arrested and searched defendant, discovering another pill bottle and a cell phone; a residue on the bottle tested positive for cocaine.
- Three text messages were read during an initial search; a warrant was later sought to search the phone and expand the evidence.
- Trial court denied suppression; jury convicted on possession (not guilty on possession with intent to distribute); evidence from the phone was central.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial cell-phone search lawful? | Omwanda; Riley prohibits warrantless phone searches incident to arrest. | Omwanda; initial search violated Fourth Amendment and Riley. | Remand required to address independent-source merits; initial search likely unlawful |
| Does independent source apply to admit phone evidence? | People; independent source doctrine may render evidence admissible if warrant would have been sought anyway. | Omwanda; independent-source analysis insufficiently developed; suppression should apply. | Remand required for factual findings on independent-source applicability |
| Was the redacted-warrant probable cause established after removing text-messages? | Redacted affidavit still supports probable cause linking phone to criminal activity | Redaction undermines probable cause without initial text-message information | Court to assess probable cause under redacted affidavit on remand |
| Did the trial court err in omitting part of the defense theory instruction? | Defendant asserted others had access to his phone; instruction omission prejudiced defense. | Instruction sufficiently conveyed theory through closing arguments | Not error; instructions and closing argument adequately conveyed theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (warrant generally required before searching cell phone)
- Arapu, 2012 CO 42 (Colo. 2012) (independent source doctrine; redacted warrant probable cause review)
- Nelson, 2012 COA 37 (Colo. App. 2012) (remand for independent-source determination; burden on People)
- Schoondermark, 759 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1988) (exclusionary rule applies to derivative evidence; independent-source exception)
- Bartley v. People, 817 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1991) (constitutional harmless error standard for evidentiary errors)