State of Tennessee v. Michael Donald Spray
M2016-00879-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- In March 2013, civilian dispatcher Jonathan Evans, while at the sheriff’s office and off-duty, picked up co-worker Michael Spray’s unlocked cell phone intending to play a prank and discovered images he believed to be child pornography.
- Evans reported the images to Sergeant Joshua Tolar; another deputy (Farrell) briefly viewed the phone as well; Evans gave a written statement to investigators the next morning.
- Detective Sergeant Charles Kimbril obtained a search warrant for the phone based on Evans’ statement; police executed the warrant, confirmed the images, arrested Spray, and obtained Spray’s written consent to search a laptop at his home.
- Forensic exams of the phone and laptop uncovered over 1,000 images depicting minors engaged in sexual activity; Spray was indicted on ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
- Spray moved to suppress, arguing Evans’ viewing was a government search (because Evans was a sheriff’s department employee) and that subsequent searches were fruit of an illegal search; the trial court denied suppression, found attenuation, convicted Spray after a bench trial, and sentenced him to an effective 16 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Spray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether images should be suppressed because Evans, a sheriff’s department dispatcher, conducted an unconstitutional search of Spray’s phone | Evans acted privately (intended a prank), so his viewing was not state action; evidence is admissible | Evans was a law‑enforcement functionary; his viewing was a warrantless government search tainting later searches | Court held Evans acted for a private purpose without government knowledge/acquiescence; no Fourth Amendment violation and subsequent searches not fruit of a poisonous tree |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burroughs, 926 S.W.2d 243 (Tenn. 1996) (adopts legitimate independent motivation test to determine when a private actor is state agent for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981) (factors for assessing government involvement in private searches)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 372 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and attenuation analysis)
- State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court credibility findings in suppression hearings entitled to deference)