284 So.3d 627
La.2019Background
- Defendant Kelly Folse, arrested for animal cruelty and weapons offenses, had her iPhone seized at arrest; the phone was passcode-locked.
- Police obtained a search warrant to extract phone data, but the phone was not searched until after the 10-day execution period in La. C.Cr.P. art. 163(C) had expired.
- On January 3, 2018, Folse came to the detective bureau with counsel to retrieve the phone; facts about how retrieval was arranged and counsel’s role are unclear.
- Police told Folse they had a warrant but would return the phone only after she provided the passcode; she provided it and officers extracted the data.
- Folse moved to suppress the phone contents as the warrant had expired; the district court denied suppression based on consent but the court of appeal reversed, finding coercion/bad faith.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari, declined to resolve statutory interpretation of Art. 163(D)(2) or decide on good-faith/consent/inevitable-discovery claims due to an underdeveloped record, reversed the court of appeal, and remanded for further evidentiary proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Folse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. C.Cr.P. art. 163(D)(2) authorized data extraction after the 10‑day period | Art. 163(D)(2) permits examination/testing of seized property despite art. 163(C)’s 10‑day limit | Art. 163(C) bars execution after 10 days; extraction was unlawful | Court declined to resolve on this record and did not adopt State’s expansive reading; remanded for further factfinding |
| Whether Folse validly consented by providing her passcode | Consent was given voluntarily in exchange for return of property | Consent was coerced or only acquiescence to asserted warrant authority | Court found record insufficient to determine voluntariness vs. coercion; remanded for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether officers reasonably relied in good faith on a warrant | Officer reasonably and in good faith believed the warrant authorized extraction | No good‑faith basis shown; warrant was stale and reliance unreasonable | Court could not resolve good‑faith claim on sparse record; remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether inevitable discovery applies | Evidence would have been obtained later with a fresh warrant | No showing probable cause existed to obtain a new warrant; not inevitable | Court left inevitable‑discovery claim unresolved pending additional factfinding |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (discusses privacy interests in cell phones and general rule that warrants are usually required)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent induced by assertion of lawful authority/warrant is coerced)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (standards for voluntariness of consent searches)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)