Spence v. State
118 A.3d 864
Md.2015Background
- In January 2011 police responded to a reported robbery at a trailer park; footprints led to a home where Tonya LaLone lived with petitioner Dwayne Spence.
- Officers encountered Spence in a bedroom using a cell phone; they ordered him out, frisked and arrested him after finding marijuana, scales, and paraphernalia in the room.
- Sergeant Nagel activated Spence’s phone screen, opened the message folder, and read recent text messages that suggested drug distribution and two unread messages relating to the robbery.
- After seizing the phone she later obtained a warrant to search the device; the messages read at arrest and those obtained by warrant were used at trial.
- Spence moved to suppress the text messages; the trial court denied the motion, and he was convicted following a bench trial on an agreed statement of facts.
- On appeal the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari, stayed proceedings pending Riley v. California, and ultimately affirmed denial of suppression based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; an unrelated preserved-waiver claim was not reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Spence’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reading text messages from a cell phone without a warrant during an arrest violated the Fourth Amendment | Warrantless search of phone data exceeded search-incident-to-arrest exception and violated Riley | Sergeant Nagel’s immediate activation and reading were reasonable under exigent circumstances; alternatively, evidence should be admissible under good-faith reliance on then-binding precedent | The search violated Riley’s rule generally, but suppression was not required because the officer acted in objectively reasonable reliance on then-controlling precedent (Robinson) — good-faith exception applied |
| Whether exigent circumstances excused the warrantless search | No adequate case-specific exigency shown | Officer had reasonable concern about evidence destruction and possible ongoing communication about police presence | Court did not decide exigency because it resolved the case on good-faith grounds |
| Whether the good-faith exception applies to pre-Riley searches of cell phones | Riley requires warrants for phone data; thus suppression should follow | Police relied on Robinson and Maryland precedent; their conduct was objectively reasonable under then-binding law (Davis) | Good-faith exception applies; evidence admitted |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to state on record that Spence’s waiver of jury trial was knowingly and voluntarily made requires reversal | Waiver inquiry defective; reversal required | No contemporaneous objection at trial; claim not preserved for appeal under Rule 8-131(a) | Claim not preserved — appellate review refused |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (established bright-line search-incident-to-arrest rule)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (defined officer-safety and evidence-destruction rationales for searches incident to arrest)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant generally required to search digital data on cell phones seized incident to arrest)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (exclusionary rule does not apply to police action in reasonable reliance on then-controlling appellate precedent)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (good-faith reliance on statute)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith reliance on warrant)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Briscoe v. State, 422 Md. 384 (Maryland application of good-faith reliance on Belton prior to Gant)
- Kelly v. State, 436 Md. 406 (Maryland application of good-faith doctrine to pre-Jones GPS tracking)