15 Cal. App. 5th 294
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- In September 2015 detectives surveilling a suspected narcotics house stopped Megan Sandee on a bicycle traffic violation; she told officers she was on probation with a search condition.
- Dispatch confirmed Sandee had a Fourth Amendment waiver covering property, residence, vehicle and workplace; an officer searched her backpack (found a needle) and her cell phone (photographed text messages). A nearby bag of methamphetamine was recovered.
- Sandee was arrested and charged; she moved to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, finding the phone search within the probation search condition.
- Sandee pled guilty to possession for sale and unauthorized possession; the court granted probation. She appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
- The appellate court reviewed whether a reasonable objective person at the time of the 2015 search would interpret probation terms authorizing searches of "property" and "personal effects" to include a cell phone and its data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandee) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s cell phone falls within a probation search condition authorizing searches of "property" and "personal effects" | Probation clause did not clearly and unambiguously include electronic device data; cell‑phone contents are qualitatively different (Riley) and warrant special protection | The probationer objectively waived Fourth Amendment rights as to her "property" and "personal effects," which reasonably include a cell phone and its text messages | The search was within the scope of Sandee’s probation search condition; suppression was properly denied |
| Whether post‑search statutory or later judicial developments (ECPA; In re I.V.) should alter the scope of the 2015 probation waiver | Trial court should interpret the condition in light of the ECPA and recent cases to exclude electronic data unless explicitly included | Scope is determined by what a reasonable person would have understood at the time of the 2015 search; ECPA and I.V. post‑date the search and are not retroactively controlling | Court rejected retroactive application; the relevant inquiry is an objective understanding at the time of the search, so ECPA/I.V. do not affect the 2015 search validity |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bravo, 43 Cal.3d 600 (Cal. 1987) (probation search clauses interpreted by an objective test: what a reasonable person would understand)
- Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell phones generally require warrants; their contents implicate substantial privacy interests)
- U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2001) (balancing test for searches of probationers: privacy intrusion vs. governmental interest)
- United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) (cell‑phone search under a probation clause not clearly covered; balanced Riley privacy interests against supervision needs and suppressed evidence)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for searches based on then‑binding precedent)