Smallwood v. State
113 So. 3d 724
Fla.2013Background
- Robbery at a Jacksonville convenience store; victim identified Smallwood (Dooley) as the robber from a photo lineup and trial testimony.
- Gloves, mask, money, and a gun were involved; DNA on gloves showed multiple contributors, including Smallwood.
- Officer Brown seized Smallwood’s cell phone during arrest but did not document it in the arrest report; Brown later inspected the phone’s data.
- A defense motion to suppress the phone-derived photos was denied; trial relied on Chimel/Robinson-based reasoning to permit access to the phone’s contents.
- First District affirmed, but certified aQuestion of great public importance about whether Robinson controls cell-phone searches incident to arrest; court urged a Florida ruling.
- Court reviews Fourth Amendment framework and Florida conformity clause to determine whether Robinson applies to cell phones, and whether a warrant is required before inspecting data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Robinson apply to cell-phone searches incident to arrest? | Smallwood: Robinson controls; cell phone is a container. | Smallwood: distinguish cell phone from traditional container; Robinson not controlling. | Robinson not controlling; conformity clause not require applying Robinson. |
| Is a warrant required to search the data on a cell phone removed from an arrestee? | State: search-incident-to-arrest allows access to phone data. | Defense: need warrant; Gant constraints; no weapon/evidence risk after separation. | A warrant is required to search the contents/data of the cell phone after removal. |
| Does the good-faith exception apply to the phone search? | State: Davis good-faith applies. | Good-faith exception does not apply. | |
| Were the phone-derived photos harmless error or basis for a new trial? | Admission of photos not harmless error; new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to arrest authorizes inspection of arrestee's person and immediate belongings)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (containers within reach under search-incident-to-arrest; defines 'container' concept)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest after arrestee is separated from vehicle/evidence)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (two justifications for search-incident-to-arrest: weapon removal and evidence preservation)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (serious review of exemptions to warrants; exemptions must be justified)
- State v. Daniels, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1995) (Florida conformity clause and application to decisions of other courts)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard; focus on effect of error on trier of fact)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (cell-phone search incident to arrest; tension with Gant/Robinson)