STATE v. MARCUM, 319 P.3d 681

Background

Angela Marcum, James Miller, and William Layden were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the State; Miller (an assistant DA) and Marcum (drug court coordinator) exchanged texts while under investigation.
The State obtained U.S. Cellular business records (text message transcripts) for Miller’s phone pursuant to a warrant; it did not seize data from the physical phones.
Marcum and Miller moved to suppress the U.S. Cellular records; the trial court granted suppression as to Marcum and Miller (in Pittsburg County) but denied Layden’s motion; Miller’s separate Oklahoma County suppression was later dismissed on appeal, leaving Marcum as the sole appellee.
The narrow question presented on appeal: whether Marcum had a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in text-message contents and account records held by U.S. Cellular for Miller’s phone account (messages she sent to Miller and Miller’s replies recorded on Miller’s account).
The trial court found Marcum had such an expectation and rejected the State’s reliance on the good-faith exception; this Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and reversed as to Marcum.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marcum had a Fourth Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in U.S. Cellular records of texts on Miller’s phone account	Marcum: she exhibited a subjective privacy expectation in messages she sent and received that society should recognize as reasonable	State: Marcum lacked a possessory or account relationship with Miller’s phone/account and thus no reasonable expectation in third‑party business records	Held: No — Marcum did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text contents or account records maintained for another person’s phone; suppression reversed
Whether the seizure of business records from a phone company implicates defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights (scope of Fourth Amendment protection for third‑party stored texts)	Marcum: content of texts is akin to letters/phone calls and merits Fourth Amendment protection even if stored by a provider	State: third‑party doctrine and Miller/Miller‑account holder distinctions mean no protection for non‑account senders once messages are received and stored by another’s account	Held: The court adopted precedent denying expectation of privacy in another’s phone/account records; non‑account senders cannot claim protection to records held by a third party
Whether the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the warrant/seizure	State: officers executed a warrant and acted in objectively reasonable reliance on magistrate; Leon good‑faith exception applies	Marcum: trial court concluded Oklahoma had not adopted a good‑faith exception in these circumstances	Held: Not reached on the merits (moot after resolution of privacy issue), but court noted Oklahoma has adopted the Leon good‑faith exception and trial court erred in rejecting it

Key Cases Cited

Rakas v. Illinois, 489 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; expectation-of-privacy analysis, not mere standing)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (test for reasonable expectation of privacy)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 485 (1976) (business records held by third party generally not protected by Fourth Amendment)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 785 (1979) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone toll records held by phone company)
City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010) (declined to decide expectation of privacy in employer‑issued electronic messages; caution in extending privacy doctrines to evolving tech)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)