776 S.E.2d 917
S.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brown was convicted of first-degree burglary after a warrantless search of his passcode-locked cell phone yielded evidence.
- Phone found at burglary scene was unclaimed and placed in police custody for days.
- Detective unlocked the phone later using a passcode and used its contents to identify Brown.
- State relied on abandonment doctrine to justify searching the phone without a warrant.
- Trial court found abandonment based on objective factors; Brown challenged the suppression ruling.
- Appellate court affirmed; Brown dissented advocating suppression and warrant requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of Brown's phone was valid under abandonment. | Brown maintained privacy; no abandonment, passcode showed expectation of privacy. | Abandonment did not apply; warrant required for contents. | Abandonment justified the search; no warrant needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (warrant generally required to search cell phones; privacy concerns high)
- State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454 (SC 1995) (abandonment exception to Fourth Amendment applies to abandoned property)
- United States v. Tugwell, 125 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 1997) (abandonment determined by objective facts, not subjective intent)
- Oswald, United States v. Oswald, 783 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1986) (abandonment basis supported by objective factors; locked container context)
- Daggs, 133 Cal.App.4th 361 (Cal. App. 2005) (removing battery to obtain device identifiers does not necessarily negate abandonment)
- Brockman, 339 S.C. 57 (SC 2000) (affirm suppression ruling if any evidence supports it)
- Taylor, 401 S.C. 104 (SC 2013) (whether Fourth Amendment violation depends on officer’s objective actions)
- United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2000) (objective test for abandonment; external manifestations govern)