STATE v. THOMAS
2014 OK CR 12
| Okla. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Kanton Thomas was arrested after officers found a small amount of marijuana on him and subsequently seized his cell phone.
- Officers searched the phone without consent, viewed photos showing Thomas with firearms, cash, and drugs, then used those photos to obtain a warrant to download the phone contents.
- The photos formed the basis for a separate felony charge (possession of firearms after a prior felony).
- Thomas moved to suppress evidence obtained from the phone; the district court suppressed the phone evidence but denied suppression of other evidence.
- The State appealed; the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed whether the warrantless phone search was lawful and whether the good-faith or other exceptions applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the warrantless search of the cell phone lawful as a search incident to arrest? | Phone is a container and can be searched incident to arrest (Robinson). | Cell-phone data is distinct; warrant required absent exigency (Riley). | Search incident to arrest invalid for data on phones; suppression affirmed. |
| 2. Was the subsequent warrant to download phone contents supported by probable cause? | Other facts (location, nearby residences under surveillance, marijuana possession) could establish probable cause. | Affidavit relied on photos discovered in the prior illegal search; those photos were the basis for the warrant. | Warrant lacked independent probable cause because it was based on the illegal warrantless viewing. |
| 3. Does the Leon good-faith exception save the evidence? | Officers relied on a magistrate-issued warrant in good faith. | Initial viewing was unlawful, so reliance was not objectively reasonable. | Good-faith exception inapplicable where warrant was predicated on an illegal search; suppression proper. |
| 4. Are Chimel/Gant vehicle-search principles or exigent-circumstance arguments applicable? | Officers sought phone evidence related to the arrest offense; vehicle-context exceptions or exigency justify search. | Riley and the special nature of phones distinguish them from vehicle/container doctrines; no exigency shown. | Chimel/Gant exception and vehicle analogies do not justify searching phone data; no exigent circumstances shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant required to search cell‑phone data incident to arrest absent exigency)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits scope of searches incident to arrest in vehicle context)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search-incident-to-arrest rules tied to officer safety and evidence preservation)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search of containers found on arrestee upheld, but court declined to extend to phone data)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree and attenuation principles)