227 So. 3d 602
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Charles Worsham was the driver in a high‑speed crash that killed his passenger; his vehicle was impounded and its event data recorder (EDR or “black box”) later downloaded by police without a warrant.
- The download occurred 12 days after the crash (Oct. 18, 2013); a warrant application filed Oct. 22, 2013 was denied as the data already had been extracted.
- The EDR recorded vehicle data including speed, braking, change in velocity, steering input, yaw rate, angular rate, safety belt status, system voltage, and airbag warning lamp information.
- Law enforcement did not claim exigent circumstances; the State argued Worsham had no privacy interest in the downloaded data so no Fourth Amendment search occurred.
- The trial court granted Worsham’s motion to suppress the downloaded EDR data; the state appealed.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in EDR data and a warrant was required to download it from an impounded vehicle absent exigency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Worsham) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motorist has a reasonable expectation of privacy in EDR/black box data | EDR data is not exposed to the public, is difficult to extract/interpret, and therefore is subject to Fourth Amendment protection | No privacy interest: EDR records information observable on public roads (speed, braking) so its download is not a Fourth Amendment search | Court: Yes—there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in EDR data; protected by the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether police may download EDR data from an impounded vehicle without a warrant absent exigent circumstances | Warrant required before accessing EDR data from an impounded car | Warrantless download permissible because no protected privacy interest; no warrant needed | Court: Warrant required; warrantless download absent exigency violated the Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (warrantless searches outside judicial process are presumptively unreasonable)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (Fourth Amendment protects people’s reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (search occurs when government violates a subjective expectation of privacy society recognizes as reasonable)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (automobile exterior is exposed to public; car interiors are subject to Fourth Amendment protection)
- Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (warrantless examination of a vehicle’s exterior permitted)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (warrant required to search cell phones; electronic devices are qualitatively different)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (trespass and privacy concerns in vehicle tracking; electronic acquisition of data can invade privacy)
- Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Florida: warrant required to search cell phones; exceptions to warrant are narrowly drawn)
- State v. K.C., 207 So.3d 951 (Florida: warrant required to search a locked but ‘abandoned’ cell phone)
- State v. Lampley, 817 So.2d 989 (definition of Fourth Amendment search via reasonable expectation of privacy)