United States v. Antwon Jenkins
850 F.3d 912
7th Cir.2017Background
- DEA investigated Tyrone Carraway’s cocaine distribution (2011–2012); wiretaps and surveillance tied transactions to a barbershop in St. Louis and to a location called “the Gate” in East St. Louis.
- Agents intercepted calls between Carraway and a (618) XXX-4062 number; surveillance observed a black GMC Yukon registered to Devontae Jenkins arrive briefly after those calls.
- On January 28, 2012, Illinois trooper Leckrone stopped the Yukon for traffic infractions, smelled burnt cannabis, and searched the vehicle, finding ~81 grams of cocaine and three cellphones (one ringing repeatedly).
- Agent McKnight examined one phone at state police headquarters and linked the (618) XXX-4062 number and call logs to Carraway; Jenkins was Mirandized and denied knowledge.
- Jenkins was indicted for possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy; district court suppressed the phone-data search under Riley but later admitted the phone evidence on reconsideration; jury convicted Jenkins on possession; sentence 27 months to run consecutively to other federal sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of warrantless cell‑phone search | Jenkins: phone-search violated Riley; evidence should be suppressed | Government: officers reasonably relied on then-binding appellate precedent (Ortiz/Flores‑Lopez/Gary) so Davis good‑faith exception applies | Search was not objectively reasonable under Davis; warrantless phone search violated Riley; exclusionary rule implicated |
| Harmless‑error analysis for unlawfully obtained phone evidence | Jenkins: phone evidence was necessary to link him to (618) number and prove guilt | Government: ample independent evidence (wiretaps, surveillance, Carraway ID, cocaine in Jenkins’ possession) would sustain conviction | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed |
| Sentencing — consecutive vs. concurrent term | Jenkins: district court relied impermissibly on conduct related to conspiracy (mistrial) to impose consecutive sentence | Government: court relied on criminal history, offense seriousness, need for punishment; court may consider uncharged/ acquitted conduct by preponderance | No procedural or substantive error; district court did not abuse discretion; consecutive sentence upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant generally required to search cell‑phone data seized incident to arrest)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; reaching‑distance rule)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search incident to arrest justifications: officer safety and evidence preservation)
- United States v. Flores‑Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (held searching a phone for number incident to arrest permissible pre‑Riley)
- United States v. Gary, 790 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2015) (refused exclusion where officers reasonably relied on pre‑Riley circuit precedent)
- United States v. Ortiz, 84 F.3d 977 (7th Cir. 1996) (search of pager incident to arrest upheld)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) (warrant required for searches remote in time/place from arrest; luggage/containers not automatically searchable incident to arrest)