STATE v. MARCUM
2014 OK CR 1
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Angela Marcum (drug court coordinator) and James Miller (assistant DA) exchanged text messages; Miller's U.S. Cellular account records were obtained by warrant.
- Both were charged with conspiracy to defraud the State; Miller faced separate perjury charges. Defendants moved to suppress text-message evidence.
- The Pittsburg County trial court found Marcum and Miller had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the texts and suppressed the U.S. Cellular records as to Marcum and Miller (Layden's motion was overruled).
- The State appealed; appeals consolidated and Miller’s appeal later dismissed, leaving Marcum as appellee.
- The narrow legal question: whether Marcum has a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in text-message contents and account records held by U.S. Cellular for Miller’s phone account (i.e., texts she sent to Miller that appear on his provider records).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marcum has a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in text-message contents and provider records for Miller's phone account | State: Marcum lacks a privacy interest in another person’s account records and cannot challenge third‑party business records | Marcum: she exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy in messages she sent to Miller that society should recognize as reasonable | Court held Marcum did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages or account records of Miller’s phone held by U.S. Cellular (suppression reversed) |
| Whether the seizure targeted third‑party business records or a private phone and whether that affects Fourth Amendment analysis | State: the warrant targeted corporate business records kept in regular course of business (third‑party doctrine applies) | Marcum: content of texts is more than ordinary business records and merits Fourth Amendment protection | Court adopted third‑party reasoning: no expectation of privacy in another’s account records; distinguished cases protecting account‑holder’s own phone |
| Applicability of the good‑faith exception to an allegedly deficient warrant | State: officers relied objectively reasonably on a magistrate‑issued warrant; Leon good‑faith exception applies | Defendants/Trial court: Oklahoma had not adopted the federal good‑faith exception for warrant defects | Court noted Oklahoma recognizes the Leon good‑faith exception and the trial court erred to the extent it rejected that doctrine (Proposition III moot after decision) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (about personal, not derivative, Fourth Amendment rights)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Katz test for subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in third‑party bank records)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no expectation of privacy in telephone dialed‑number records)
- City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (text messages and employer‑issued devices; court declined broad ruling on privacy expectations)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (Fourth Amendment violation on physical trespass; concurrences question third‑party doctrine in digital age)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (email privacy; third‑party access does not automatically negate expectation of privacy)
- Finley v. United States, 477 F.3d 250 (reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages on certain employer‑provided phones)