State v. Clampitt, 364 S.W.3d 605

Clampitt was charged with first-degree involuntary manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident for a 2010 Audrain County crash.
Clampitt moved to suppress all evidence from his cell phone and records obtained from U.S. Cellular via four investigative subpoenas in 2010.
Subpoenas sought text message content and detail for specific numbers over a multi-day period surrounding the accident.
The Special Prosecutor testified the subpoenas aimed to obtain an admission of who was driving and relied on third-party records without a warrant.
The trial court granted suppression on grounds of a reasonable privacy expectation, unlawful subpoenas, and no good-faith exception.
The State appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, upholding suppression of the text-message records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Clampitt have standing to challenge text messages?	State contends no reasonable privacy expectation; third-party records doctrine controls.	Clampitt has a privacy interest in his text messages stored on a private device.	Clampitt had a reasonable expectation of privacy; standing exists.
Were the investigative subpoenas unreasonably broad or a fishing expedition?	Subpoenas were limited to relevant timeframes; legitimate investigative needs.	Subpoenas requested broad copies of all messages beyond the incident period; lacked specific purpose.	Subpoenas were unreasonably broad and impermissible fishing expeditions.
Does the good-faith exception apply to prosecution-conduct in this subpoena case?	Leon-type good faith should excuse suppression when relying on subpoenas.	Subpoenas were unreasonable; no applicable good-faith exception.	Good faith exception does not apply; suppression affirmed on constitutional grounds.

Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (emails stored with ISP receive strong Fourth Amendment protection; third-party access does not destroy privacy)
State v. Snow, 299 S.W.3d 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (Fourth Amendment governs suppressibility; standard for suppression motion)
State v. Loyd, 338 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (discussion of privacy expectations and searches in Missouri appellate context)
State v. Williams, 334 S.W.3d 177 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Nelson, 334 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (facts and inferences reviewed in light favorable to trial court's ruling)
State v. Schroeder, 330 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. banc 2011) (Fourth Amendment interpretations by Missouri Supreme Court)
United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) (cell phones contain private information; privacy expectations in call/text data)
United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (privacy in text messages on cell phone due to possessory interest)
United States v. Davis, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Or. 2011) (recognizes privacy expectations in text/call data on cell phones)
United States v. Gomez, 807 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (text messages as private information on cell phones)
United States v. Quintana, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (cell phone search warrant considerations for text data)
State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio 2009) (privacy expectations in cell phone data)