United States v. Chad Camou
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23347
9th Cir.2014Background
- Camou arrested at a Border Patrol checkpoint; cell phone seized from his truck along with other occupants.
- Booking occurs at the security offices; Camou’s phone is inventoried as seized property.
- Lundy is Mirandized; she provides information about “Mother Teresa” and Camou’s role in smuggling, including phone-call patterns.
- Agent Walla searches Camou’s phone about 12:00 a.m., one hour 20 minutes after arrest, reviewing logs, videos, and photos.
- Agent Walla discovers hundreds of child-pornography images; FBI later executes a warrant resulting in hundreds more images.
- District court denies suppression; Camou pleads guilty to possession of child pornography with sentence of 37 months; Camou appeals.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless cell phone search was incident to arrest | Camou: search not within immediate control and not contemporaneous | Camou’s position: could be incident to arrest | Not incident to arrest; search unlawful |
| Whether exigency justified warrantless search | Exigency due to potential data loss | Exigency exists | Exigency not shown; scope overbroad |
| Whether vehicle exception applies to cell phone | Phone as container may be searched with probable cause | Vehicle exception would permit search | Cell phones are non-containers; vehicle exception fails |
| Inevitable discovery | Warrant would have been obtained later; evidence inevitable | Probable cause but no warrant sought; Mejia controls | Inevitable discovery not satisfied; Mejia governs |
| Good faith | Leon allows good-faith if reliance on reasonable but erroneous basis | Walla’s reliance not reasonable; Herring distinguishes | Good faith exception not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest limits to arrestee’s immediate control)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (vehicle-context exception for evidence in vehicle)
- Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (temporal/ spatial limits on incident-to-arrest searches)
- Maddox, 614 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (intervening events render search not incident to arrest)
- Vasey, 834 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1987) (delay after arrest defeats contemporaneity for incidental search)