United States v. Eisenhour
44 F. Supp. 3d 1028
D. Nev.2014Background
- Eisenhour is charged after a May 3, 2013 arrest following an undercover drug purchase; a cell phone is seized.
- Cl provides information linking Eisenhour to heroin transactions and arranged the later sale; heroin found in vehicle and on person.
- Cell phone is searched on May 7, 2013 without a warrant; text messages indicating heroin transactions are found.
- Eisenhour moves to suppress all evidence derived from the warrantless cell phone search, including digital data.
- The court considers Riley v. California (2014) and related authorities to determine if a warrant was required and whether any exception applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must police obtain a warrant to search cell phone data after arrest? | Eisenhour relies on Riley requiring a warrant for digital data. | Government argues no binding Ninth Circuit precedent; may rely on exceptions such as good faith. | Warrant required; warrantless search invalid; data suppressed. |
| Is a post-arrest cell phone search justified as a search incident to arrest when conducted days later? | Riley controls; search incident to arrest justified at arrest or contemporaneous states. | Argues possible exception or different analysis may apply. | Not contemporaneous; search invalid as search incident to arrest. |
| Does the good faith exception negate suppression here? | There is reliance on non-binding or conflicting circumstances that could justify good faith. | Argues good faith may apply where precedent existed to rely upon. | No good faith exception applies; suppression still required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones require warrants to search digital content; logs implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (good faith exception limits; reliance on binding precedent required)
- United States v. Grant, 682 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2012) (supports warrant search of cell phones; consent not always sufficient)
- United States v. Maddox, 614 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (contestation of search validity when post-arrest events intervene)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits on searches incident to arrest; contemporaneity required)