STATE v. MARCUM
2014 OK CR 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Angela Marcum and James Miller were accused in a multicounty grand jury indictment arising from alleged obstruction/embezzlement-related investigation; Miller was an assistant DA and Marcum was a drug-court coordinator and his romantic partner.
- Investigators obtained U.S. Cellular business records (texts sent to and from Miller’s personal number) via a warrant; no data was searched directly from the physical phones.
- Miller and Marcum moved to suppress the text-message records; the Pittsburg County trial court granted suppression as to both Miller and Marcum.
- The State appealed; this Court consolidated related appeals and Miller’s appeal was later dismissed, leaving Marcum as the appellee in this consolidated appeal.
- The narrow legal question presented: whether Marcum had a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in text-message contents and account records maintained by U.S. Cellular for Miller’s phone account (messages she sent to and received from Miller but that were recorded on Miller’s account).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Marcum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appeal jurisdiction | State: appeal under 22 O.S. §1053(5) is proper | Marcum: (implicitly) suppression order should stand | Court: appeal is proper and review serves interests of justice |
| Reasonable expectation of privacy in third‑party phone records | State: Marcum lacks Fourth Amendment interest in Miller’s U.S. Cellular records | Marcum: she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts she sent to Miller and in the content recorded by the provider | Court: Marcum did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts/account records of another person’s phone account; suppression was error |
| Standing/capacity to challenge third‑party records | State: Fourth Amendment rights are personal and Miller (account holder) is the proper claimant | Marcum: joined Miller’s motion and argued privacy interest in messages sent/received by her | Court: Fourth Amendment inquiry requires expectation-of-privacy analysis; Marcum failed to show such an expectation in Miller’s account records |
| Good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule | State: officers acted in objective good faith reliance on magistrate-issued warrant (Leon) | Marcum: trial court rejected good-faith as not adopted by Oklahoma | Court: Oklahoma has adopted the Leon good‑faith exception; trial court erred in rejecting it (proposition rendered moot by finding on privacy issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and enforceable only where one's own rights are infringed)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no expectation of privacy in bank records held by third party)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in phone-number dialed info held by phone company)
- City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (declined to broadly resolve employee privacy in pager/text messages; cautioned about premature Fourth Amendment rulings on evolving tech)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (electronic-location tracking and commentary on third‑party disclosure doctrine)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (Sixth Circuit recognition that third‑party possession does not automatically defeat expectation of privacy in email)