The State v. Hill
338 Ga. App. 57
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police investigated a taxi driver’s report that a passenger (James Brandon Hill) fled without paying a fare and left a cellular phone in the backseat.
- Officer seized the phone (no dispute about seizure) but could not unlock it because of a passcode.
- The officer placed an emergency (911) call from the phone; the dispatcher provided the phone number and Hill’s name and birthdate associated with that number.
- Hill moved to suppress the identifying information obtained via the 911 call, arguing the officer’s action was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search of his phone.
- Trial court granted the motion to suppress; the State appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding Hill had no legitimate expectation of privacy in his name, birthdate, and phone number as obtained by the 911 dispatcher, so no Fourth Amendment search occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placing a 911 call from a seized, locked cell phone to obtain identifying subscriber information is a Fourth Amendment search | The officer’s act of calling 911 to learn Hill’s identity was a search of his cellular phone and violated the Fourth Amendment | No search occurred because the information obtained (phone number, name, birthdate) is non‑content identifying information in which Hill had no reasonable expectation of privacy | Reversed: no Fourth Amendment search; identifying, non‑content information (phone number, name, birthdate) is not entitled to Fourth Amendment protection in these circumstances |
| Whether Riley v. California requires suppression because the phone was used to obtain information | Riley governs warrant requirement for accessing phone contents; here officer sought identifying info, not contents | Riley does not bar officers from using a lawfully possessed phone to elicit non‑content identifying data | Court distinguished Riley; Riley concerned accessing phone contents and warrants, not causing a phone to transmit subscriber/identifying data |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (distinguishing content privacy from non‑content information)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishing reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed or third‑party routing information)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (searches of phone contents generally require a warrant)
- United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir.) (distinguishing content from non‑content transactional data)
- United States v. Skinner, 690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in certain phone‑emitted location data)
- United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir.) (no expectation of privacy in e‑mail header/to‑from addresses)
- United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165 (9th Cir.) (no expectation of privacy in mail cover/envelope face information)
- Ensley v. State, 330 Ga. App. 258 (Ga. Ct. App.) (no privacy in subscriber information associated with internet account)
- Stephenson v. State, 171 Ga. App. 938 (Ga. Ct. App.) (protects call content but not that a call was placed or a particular number dialed)
- State v. DeFranco, 43 A.3d 1253 (N.J. Super.) (no state‑constitutional expectation of privacy in phone number)
- United States v. Bah, 794 F.3d 617 (6th Cir.) (accessing magnetic‑strip/track data lawfully in possession does not implicate a reasonable expectation of privacy)