815 S.E.2d 761
S.C.2018Background
- On Dec. 22, 2011 a burglary occurred; a cell phone was found ringing on the victim’s bedroom floor and taken by police to evidence storage.
- Six days later Detective Lester retrieved the phone, guessed the passcode (1234), and accessed contacts and a background photo.
- Detective Lester used a contact (“Grandma”) and databases (Accurint, DMV) to identify Lamar Brown and then questioned Brown, who admitted ownership but said he lost it Dec. 23 and later canceled service.
- Brown was charged with first-degree burglary; he moved to suppress evidence from the phone arguing the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court found Brown abandoned the phone; jury convicted and sentenced him to 18 years.
- South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether digital information on a phone can be abandoned and whether Riley v. California changes the abandonment analysis; the court affirmed the court of appeals by a majority, with a dissent urging reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Can digital information on a cell phone be "abandoned" for Fourth Amendment purposes? | Abandonment doctrine applies to property generally, including phones; if owner relinquishes expectation of privacy, warrantless search is permissible. | A phone’s digital contents are uniquely private; abandonment should not permit warrantless searches of passcode-protected phones. | Yes. The court held abandonment analysis applies to cell phones, but courts must consider their unique character. |
| 2. Does Riley v. California change the abandonment analysis or create a categorical warrant requirement absent exigency? | Riley does not alter the abandonment framework; its observations about phone privacy are a factor in abandonment inquiries. | Riley requires a warrant for cell‑phone searches absent exigent circumstances and should bar abandonment as an exception for passcode‑protected phones. | Riley is important but does not alter abandonment; its reasoning is a factor, not a categorical bar. |
| 3. Was Brown’s phone abandoned under the objective-totality-of-circumstances test? | Brown made no efforts to recover the phone for six days, canceled service, and left the phone at the burglary scene—objectively indicating abandonment. | Brown had a passcode, the phone received calls/texts afterward (suggesting attempts to locate), and he did not expressly relinquish ownership—so no abandonment. | The court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s factual finding of abandonment and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. _ (cell phones hold privacies of life; generally require a warrant to search digital contents)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (abandoned property not protected by Fourth Amendment)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing/expectation of privacy principles)
- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (privacy of papers)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to arrest principles)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (limits on search incident to arrest)
- State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454 (abandonment doctrine under South Carolina law)