State v. Michael Patino, 2014 R.I. LEXIS 99

Background

On Oct. 4, 2009, six-year-old Marco Nieves was found unresponsive; police responded to the apartment of his mother, Trisha Oliver. Multiple cell phones were observed in the apartment, including Oliver’s LG phone and defendant Michael Patino’s phones (T-Mobile and Metro PCS).
Sgt. Kite viewed an alert on Oliver’s LG phone at the scene and opened the device, seeing an incriminating outgoing text addressed to the defendant; police later seized multiple phones and obtained numerous search warrants and service-provider records.
Defendant was arrested, interrogated, and (after detectives referenced text messages) gave a written confession; the trial court excluded the confession and portions of the interrogation (not appealed).
Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized from the scene and information obtained from the phones; after lengthy hearings the Superior Court suppressed almost all phone-related evidence and found a preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.
The Attorney General appealed, arguing lack of standing to challenge searches of Oliver’s phone, no reasonable expectation of privacy in sent text messages on another’s device, lack of standing for Franks review, and that affidavits still established probable cause.
The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part: it held Patino lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages stored on Oliver’s phone (so no standing to challenge that search), vacated suppression as to Oliver’s LG phone and some records, but upheld suppression of other phones and evidence and sustained the Superior Court’s Franks preliminary finding as to warrants where defendant had standing.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Patino's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge search of Oliver’s LG phone and its messages	Patino lacks standing because the phone belonged to Oliver; sender loses control upon delivery	Patino argued people retain reasonable privacy in their sent text messages even when stored on another’s phone; also asserted standing as frequent overnight guest in apartment	Court: No standing to challenge contents on another’s phone; sender relinquishes control upon delivery, so expectation of privacy not objectively reasonable in recipient’s device
Expectation of privacy in text messages generally	Texts should not enjoy full privacy if stored on another’s device; control over device is critical	Texts are private communications and users have reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents	Court: A person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages on their own device, but not in identical copies stored on another person’s phone; control is decisive
Legality of seizures/searches of defendant’s own phones (T‑Mobile, Metro PCS, iPhone) and other phones at scene	State did not meaningfully challenge suppression findings on some phones on appeal; argued probable cause issues for Franks	Patino argued warrantless searches and poor evidence handling tainted phone evidence and rendered material inadmissible	Court: Affirmed suppression as to Metro PCS, T‑Mobile, and iPhone (state waived meaningful challenge). Vacated suppression as to Oliver’s LG phone and certain provider records because defendant lacked standing to challenge those items
Franks challenge to warrant affidavits (alleged false statements)	For warrants related to defendant’s own phones, affidavits still established probable cause even excluding challenged material	Patino made preliminary showing that affidavits contained material false statements warranting a Franks hearing	Court: Deferred to Superior Court's preliminary factual finding that Patino made a substantial showing for Franks as to warrants where he has standing; but Patino lacked standing to seek Franks review for warrants targeting items he didn’t have a privacy interest in

Key Cases Cited

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (establishes reliance on reasonable expectation of privacy analysis)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (framework for subjective and objective expectation of privacy)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing is personal; must show expectation of privacy)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (procedure for challenging warrant affidavits containing false statements)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause legal questions)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (privacy expectations can change with technology)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (disclosure to third party affects expectation of privacy)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (third‑party disclosure and records doctrine)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree exclusionary principles)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (overnight guest standing principles)
State v. Verrecchia, 766 A.2d 377 (Rhode Island factors for expectation of privacy and standing)
State v. Briggs, 756 A.2d 731 (two‑step test for subjective and objective privacy expectations in RI)
State v. Quinlan, 921 A.2d 96 (standing burden and personal nature of Fourth Amendment rights)
State v. Linde, 876 A.2d 1115 (de novo review for mixed questions of law and fact)