249 P.3d 1123
Colo.2011Background
- March 2008 home search leads to cocaine and drug-sale evidence; defendant Schutter charged with felony drug offenses and habitual offender status.
- Phone search relied on information from text messages; warrant for home search based on earlier text-message evidence from iPhone.
- District court suppressed evidence, finding no abandonment and that warrantless viewing of messages violated Fourth Amendment.
- Phone found in a convenience-store restroom; clerk refused retrieval; officer Burg later possessed phone and identified owner to police.
- Later that evening, officers obtained a warrant to search the phone for additional messages and then a warrant to search the home; suppression order followed.
- People appealed interlocutorily under section 16-12-102(2), C.R.S. (2010) and C.A.R. 4.1, challenging the initial warrantless viewing of text messages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the iPhone was abandoned, lost, or mislaid such that warrantless viewing was permissible | Schutter’s property status diminished privacy rights; search justified | Phone not abandoned; no owner-identification purpose justifying warrantless search | iPhone was not abandoned; warrantless viewing beyond reasonable scope |
| Whether the initial warrantless viewing of text messages could be justified to identify the owner of lost property | Reasonableness depends on location and intrusion, not strict inventory rules | No least-intrusive approach or inventory-like policy; search excessive | Not justified under lost-property rationale; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morrison, 583 P.2d 924 (Colo. 1978) (no legitimate expectation of privacy in abandoned property)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (commercial premises privacy distinctions; abandonment concepts vary by context)
- United States v. Hill, 393 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2005) (public restroom privacy expectations; search considerations)
- Gudema v. Nassau County, 163 F.3d 717 (2d Cir. 1998) (lost property searches; identity determination limits)
- State v. Hamilton, 67 P.3d 871 (Mont. 2003) (lost wallet identification; inventory-like procedure considerations)