United States v. Dixon
984 F. Supp. 2d 1347
N.D. Ga.2013Background
- Defendant Woodrow R. Dixon, Jr. was arrested on June 26, 2012; officers seized a Samsung Galaxy smartphone that was in his hand at the time of arrest.
- Agent Arrugueta took the phone to the BATF office and used a Cellebrite device to extract data from the phone and its micro SD card while Dixon was being booked at a different location.
- Dixon moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the warrantless search/extraction, arguing Arizona v. Gant and the privacy interests in modern cell phones require a warrant.
- The government contended the search was lawful as a search incident to arrest (citing Robinson and related precedent) and invoked concerns about remote wiping and evidence preservation.
- Magistrate Judge Scofield recommended suppression, finding the phone seizure was lawful but the subsequent off-site, full-data extraction violated the Fourth Amendment; the district judge adopted the recommendation and granted the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a warrantless search/extraction of data from a cell phone seized from an arrestee is authorized as a search incident to arrest | Search incident to arrest exception does not authorize full data extraction of a smartphone; Gant limits such searches and a warrant is required | Search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (Robinson and progeny) allows seizure and search of containers on the person, including cell phones; officers needed to preserve evidence (risk of remote wipe) | Court held the off-site, post-arrest full extraction violated the Fourth Amendment; suppression granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. United States, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful custodial arrest permits full search of person)
- Edwards v. United States, 415 U.S. 800 (warrantless seizure and later search of clothing incident to arrest upheld where search could have been made on the spot)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to areas within arrestee's reach or where evidence relevant to the crime of arrest may be found)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (warrantless search of seized property removed to police control was unconstitutional)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (recognizes precedent upholding warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest)
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (First Cir. held warrantless search of data on cell phone seized from arrestee not authorized by search-incident-to-arrest exception)
- Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Fla. 2013) (state high court held warrant required to access data on cell phone seized incident to arrest)