United States v. Davis
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38319
| D. Or. | 2011Background
- Davis was arrested after a high-speed pursuit of a maroon Pontiac; officers seized him and found a red sweatshirt and other items in the area, linking him to the vehicle.
- Papers bearing Davis's name, photographs of children, high heels, and a jewelry-store receipt were found in the Pontiac; officers connected these to the case.
- At the Montavilla Motel, officers identified two juvenile girls who said they were waiting for a black guy named J.B. and later identified Davis from a photo labeled as J.B.
- The girls reported Davis had purchased new clothing and condoms for them; two separate interviews occurred, with no immediate admission about prostitution or trafficking.
- Months later, VCC (one of the girls) voluntarily turned herself in and made incriminating statements after further police interviews.
- Davis moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements obtained from the warrantless search of his phone, triggering evidentiary hearings and a partial grant of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the phone seized valid as part of an inventory search? | Government asserts inventory search justified the seizure. | Davis contends the phone should not be examined under inventory rules. | Inventory search justified the seizure, not the phone search. |
| Was the warrantless phone search justified under the automobile exception? | Government relies on automobile exception to search phone contents. | Davis argues no probable cause and inoperable vehicle context; phone not within exception. | Automobile exception inapplicable; no probable cause to search the phone. |
| Did exigent circumstances justify the phone search? | Government claims exigent circumstances to protect safety and prevent destruction of evidence. | Davis contends no immediate danger or destruction risk; no exigent need. | Exigent circumstances not established; search not justified. |
| Was the search of the phone proper under plain view? | Government invoked plain view to seize incriminating data. | Davis contends concealed data was accessed beyond plain view. | Plain view not satisfied; search of concealed data exceeded plain-view scope. |
| Whether inevitable discovery or attenuation could cure the illegality? | Government relies on inevitable discovery to admit some statements. | Davis argues statements were tainted and not attenuated; need suppression. | Inevitable discovery fails; VCC statements on Nov 1, 2009 suppressed; further hearing needed on later statements. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (inventory search of impounded vehicle permissible)
- United States v. Penn, 233 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2000) (inventory procedures justify seizure of items during towing)
- United States v. Kim, 803 F. Supp. 2d 352 (D. Haw. 2011) (cell phone searches require warrant or exception)
- United States v. Quintana, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (drug-trafficking context permits warrantless phone searches)
- United States v. Santillan, 571 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Ariz. 2008) (warrantless phone searches in drug-trafficking cases)
- United States v. Wurie, 612 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2009) (limited warrantless retrieval of call data; context-based analysis)
- United States v. Morales-Ortiz, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (D. N.M. 2004) (inevitable discovery in cell-phone searches)
- United States v. Johns, 891 F.2d 243 (9th Cir. 1989) (causal link between illegal action and tainted evidence)