245 A.3d 1222
R.I.2021Background
- Defendant Jorge Depina was indicted for the July 3, 2013 homicide of his ten‑year‑old daughter.
- Police executed a first search warrant (July 3/4, 2013) and, after the autopsy on July 5, obtained a second warrant authorizing search for “any metal items, plastic items, or hard items, anything that may be used to swing or strike” and items associated with assault or homicide.
- During the second search officers seized a Samsung digital camera from a dresser; the camera was retained in evidence but not examined until a third warrant (October 28, 2013) was obtained to search its memory card.
- Depina moved to suppress the camera and its contents, arguing the seizure exceeded the scope of the second warrant; suppression was denied by the trial justice after an evidentiary hearing in which the justice inspected the camera.
- A jury convicted Depina of second‑degree murder and he appealed, challenging the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seizure of the Samsung camera exceeded the scope of the second warrant | Seizure lawful: camera is hard/metal or very hard plastic with a wrist strap and reasonably could be used as a weapon, thus falling within the warrant’s description | Camera was a small delicate electronic unlikely to cause the injuries described; officers should have obtained a separate warrant before seizing it | Court affirms: trial justice’s factual finding that the camera was a hard/metal‑like item that could be swung was not clearly erroneous; seizure fell within the second warrant’s plain language; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (Fourth Amendment forbids general warrants)
- Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (warrant must describe with particularity what is to be seized)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (seizure beyond warrant scope is unlawful)
- United States v. Hamie, 165 F.3d 80 (scope-of-warrant principles applied in First Circuit)
- United States v. Fagan, 577 F.3d 10 (warrants read in a practical, common‑sense manner)
- State v. Storey, 8 A.3d 454 (deference to trial justice’s factual findings on suppression)
- State v. Gonzalez, 136 A.3d 1131 (view evidence in the light most favorable to the state on suppression review)
- State v. Rose, 748 A.2d 1283 (Rhode Island Constitution’s particularity requirement for warrants)