924 F.3d 1180
11th Cir.2019Background
- Early-morning domestic-disturbance at Babcock’s camper: a 16-year-old girl (C.A.) emerged distressed, bleeding, and later said she "just want[ed] to die."
- Babcock voluntarily showed deputies a video on his cell phone of C.A. holding a knife to her throat while he berated her; deputies initially returned the phone, then took it into evidence when Babcock refused further inspection.
- Officers found blood and pills in the camper; Detective Broughton kept the phone and later took it to the hospital where, after confronting C.A. with the phone, she admitted a relationship with Babcock and said sexually explicit images would be found on it.
- Detective Broughton seized the phone and held it for two days; he then obtained a warrant and found nude images and explicit videos; Babcock was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 for producing sexually explicit depictions of a minor.
- Babcock moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless two-day seizure lacked probable cause and exceeded the Terry/Place property-stop doctrine; the district court denied suppression and later imposed a 324-month sentence (below Guidelines); Babcock appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Babcock's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers could detain the phone under Terry/Place (reasonable suspicion) | Two-day retention was not a brief investigatory stop; reasonable suspicion insufficient | The facts gave reasonable suspicion to detain the phone pending investigation | Rejected: two-day retention "ripened" into a full seizure requiring probable cause |
| Whether officers had probable cause to seize the phone | Facts only supported suspicion, not probable cause that a crime had occurred or that evidence was on the phone | Collective facts (video, lies, injuries, presence of minor) provided probable cause that a crime occurred and evidence would be on the phone | Held: officers had probable cause that evidence of a crime would be on the phone |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure (risk of destruction) | Offer to email video and other alternatives removed urgency | Phone owner had motive and ability to destroy evidence; officers reasonably feared deletion before a warrant | Held: exigent-circumstances exception applied; seizure lawful without pre-seizure warrant |
| Whether consent justified seizure/search | Initial limited consent was only to view the video; Babcock refused further inspection | Government argued voluntary handing of phone implied consent or inevitable discovery | Held: consent did not justify continued seizure beyond the scope of the limited viewing; but seizure independently justified by probable cause + exigency |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (Terry-style brief detention of property allowed for limited investigation but prolonged seizure may require probable cause)
- United States v. Puglisi, 723 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1984) (luggage detention analysis; brief stops may ‘‘ripen’’ into full seizures depending on duration, intrusion, diligence)
- United States v. Virden, 488 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007) (factors—duration, intrusiveness, diligence, governmental interest—guide whether property detention needs probable cause)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones contain a vast quantity of private data; heightened privacy interests)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances; ‘‘whole greater than sum of parts’’ approach)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a practical common-sense standard, not high bar)
- United States v. Laist, 702 F.3d 608 (11th Cir. 2012) (probable-cause-based seizures may permit longer delays in obtaining warrants)
- United States v. Young, 909 F.2d 442 (11th Cir. 1990) (exigent-circumstances exception where probable cause exists and evidence likely to be destroyed before warrant)
- United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011) (exigency justified seizure of electronic servers when employees could destroy evidence)
- Crocker v. Beatty, 886 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2018) (exigent exception not automatic for phones; need objective reason to fear deletion or non-cooperation)