State v. Reynolds, 2019 Ark. 154

Background

Investigation began when Twitter reported accounts linked to child-pornography content to NCMEC; NCMEC geolocated an IP to Reynolds's Sherwood, AR residence.
Sheriff subpoenaed Comcast; Comcast identified David Reynolds as the subscriber for the implicated IP at 2324 Miramonte Drive.
Detective Spence obtained a warrant to search the residence and seize computers, cameras, and mobile devices with internet access; the district court found probable cause and issued the warrant.
Officers executed the warrant; Reynolds arrived home, produced an iPhone on request, initially declined the passcode, then unlocked the phone; an agent performed a logical data extraction.
After a later, more detailed review of phone data and Reynolds’s statements, he was charged with multiple counts of possession/viewing of child pornography; Reynolds moved to suppress phone evidence and his statements.
The circuit court suppressed phone evidence and related statements, concluding the search of Reynolds’s person/phone exceeded the premises warrant and lacked a sufficient nexus; the State appealed interlocutorily.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Reynolds's Argument	Held
Whether the phone fell within the warrant’s scope (nexus/scope)	Warrant to search premises for digital devices covers a phone on occupant; no blanket rule excludes items on person.	Seizing/searching the phone on his person exceeded a premises warrant; no nexus shown between phone and alleged criminal activity.	Appeal dismissed as improper State interlocutory appeal; suppression decision depended on mixed fact-law analysis unique to the case.
Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause (affidavit nexus)	Warrant supported by probable cause linking IP to residence and Twitter accounts containing contraband.	Affidavit lacked particularized nexus tying the phone specifically to criminal activity and failed to attach or describe the images.	Circuit court found the warrant valid for the residence; its suppression ruling turned on execution facts, not a pure legal error for interlocutory review.
Whether Reynolds voluntarily consented to provide passcode/phone	Police contend phone was voluntarily produced/unlocked after request during execution.	Reynolds contends he unlocked under threat of court order; production not truly voluntary and exceeded warrant.	Circuit court found facts about voluntariness and threats significant; decision presents mixed questions of fact and law.
Whether State’s interlocutory appeal is proper under Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3	State argues the legal question is of first impression and has statewide importance (uniform administration).	Court below relied on case-specific facts and mixed questions; appeal not limited to pure legal question.	Majority dismissed appeal for lack of proper State appeal jurisdiction; dissent would have accepted it as a pure legal question of broad importance.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sprenger, 490 S.W.3d 314 (Ark. 2016) (dismissing State interlocutory appeal when ruling was fact-intensive)
State v. Threadgill, 382 S.W.3d 657 (Ark. 2011) (appeal dismissed where particularity challenge involved case-specific facts)
State v. Nichols, 216 S.W.3d 114 (Ark. 2005) (State appeal dismissed where resolution turned on facts surrounding officer approach)
State v. Griffin, 513 S.W.3d 828 (Ark. 2017) (accepting narrow State appeals that present pure legal issues)
State v. Robinson, 430 S.W.3d 105 (Ark. 2013) (interlocutory appeal proper when material execution facts uncontested and issue is purely legal)
State v. Crane, 446 S.W.3d 182 (Ark. 2014) (declining State appeal where mixed questions of law and fact prevailed)
Choice Escrow & Land Title, LLC v. BancorpSouth Bank, 754 F.3d 611 (8th Cir. 2014) (definition/explanation of IP address)