Sinclair v. State
118 A.3d 872
| Md. | 2015Background
- Victim identified Sinclair as one of two men who carjacked him at gunpoint; stolen Dodge Charger had distinctive custom wheel rims.
- Sinclair was arrested the next day near the stolen car; police seized a Samsung flip phone from his person incident to arrest.
- Officer Stevenson opened the flip phone, photographed a screen saver showing a wheel rim matching the stolen car, scrolled through photos and photographed two additional screens (a duplicate photo and a "properties"/metadata screen).
- Defense filed a one‑page omnibus motion shortly after arraignment that generically sought suppression; the State warned it was insufficient under Maryland Rule 4‑252. The omnibus motion was later withdrawn “without prejudice.”
- On the morning of trial (about seven months later) defense made an oral motion in limine to suppress the phone images; the trial court denied it without an evidentiary hearing and the images were admitted. Sinclair was convicted; appellate review followed and the case reached the Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court decided Riley v. California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sinclair) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Md. Rule 4‑252 / waiver of suppression claim | Omnibus filing preserved suppression rights; late oral motion was considered by trial court | Omnibus was inadequate; oral motion at trial was untimely and prejudicial to the State | Sinclair waived suppression claim by failing to timely and specifically comply with Rule 4‑252; no good‑cause finding supported the late oral motion |
| Whether opening a flip phone incident to arrest is a Fourth Amendment search under Riley | Opening a flip phone (not susceptible to remote wipe/weapon hiding) to view screen saver requires a warrant under Riley | Physical inspection to secure phone and ensure safety (including viewing a screen saver in plain view) is permitted incident to arrest | Under Riley, officers may physically inspect and secure a seized phone (e.g., open it to check for weapons, power off, remove battery); viewing a screen saver plainly visible upon opening is admissible under plain view |
| Whether officer’s scrolling through phone data and photographing photos/metadata required a warrant | Scrolling into phone data and viewing photos/metadata was a warrantless search and unconstitutional under Riley | Warrant required for non‑plain‑view data; State argued incident‑to‑arrest authority or relied on trial record | Viewing/photographing non‑plain‑view data (navigating photo library, metadata) generally requires a warrant under Riley; such images would be subject to suppression absent an exception |
| Harmless error from admission of disputed phone images | Admission of photographs influenced jury; suppression would affect outcome | Even if two images were inadmissible, one image was plainly visible and duplicate, and other evidence independently established guilt; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Admission of the duplicate image and the properties screen (if erroneous) was harmless: one admissible plain‑view image plus strong independent identification and corroborating facts meant the error did not influence the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (officers generally must obtain a warrant to search digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search incident to arrest limited to arrestee and area within immediate control for officer safety and evidence preservation)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (a lawful custodial arrest justifies a search of the person incident to arrest)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits scope of vehicle searches incident to arrest; emphasizes officer safety/evidence preservation rationales)
- Denicolis v. State, 378 Md. 646 (2003) (Rule 4‑252 requires specificity in suppression motions but trial courts may excuse noncompliance for good cause where State not prejudiced)
- Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204 (1997) (belated suppression motions during trial are waived where State is deprived of the procedure to develop a suppression record)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1976) (harmless‑error standard: reversal required only if error may have influenced the verdict)