207 So. 3d 951
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Lauderhill police stopped a speeding, headlight-off vehicle later found to have been stolen; two occupants fled on foot.
- Officers observed one or two cell phones in plain view on the front passenger area; the lock screen showed a person resembling a fleeing occupant.
- The phone was passcode-protected; officers did not attempt to unlock it and turned the device over to Sunrise PD for the stolen-vehicle investigation.
- Months later a Sunrise forensic detective unlocked the phone without a warrant, concluding the phone belonged to K.C.; police used that information to charge K.C. with burglary of a conveyance.
- K.C. moved to suppress the phone’s contents (he did not contest the seizure); the trial court granted suppression. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | K.C.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police could search an abandoned, passcode-protected cell phone without a warrant under the abandonment exception | The phone was abandoned once left in the stolen vehicle and unclaimed, so no expectation of privacy justified a warrantless search | Password protection shows continued expectation of privacy; abandonment of the physical device does not waive privacy in its digital contents; warrant required | Court held the abandonment exception does not authorize warrantless searches of abandoned phones whose contents are password-protected — police must obtain a warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (warrant generally required to search cell phones; phones are qualitatively/quantitatively different from other containers)
- Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court: modern cell phones materially distinguishable from static containers)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (limits on search-incident-to-arrest justified by officer safety and evidence preservation)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search-incident-to-arrest of physical containers upheld; Riley declined to extend this to cell phones)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (vehicle-search principles tied to arrestee access to passenger compartment)
- State v. Brown, 414 S.C. 14 (S.C. 2015) (post-Riley case upholding warrantless search of abandoned, locked phone; court here sided with Brown dissent)
- State v. Samalia, 186 Wash.2d 262 (Wash. 2016) (post-Riley decision holding abandoned-phone searches may be warrantless; court here sided with Samalia dissent)
Affirmed: warrantless access to the contents of a passcode-protected, abandoned phone violated the Fourth Amendment; police must obtain a warrant.