United States v. Ezra Griffith
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15636
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Police investigating a year-old gang-related homicide identified Ezra Griffith as a suspect and traced a car used in the getaway to his family; Griffith had recently been released from a 10-month incarceration and moved in with girlfriend Sheree Lewis.
- Detectives obtained an affidavit describing Griffith’s suspected role and his residence; two sentences asserted, based on training/experience, that gang members ‘‘often’’ use cell phones and other electronic devices to communicate.
- A magistrate issued a warrant authorizing search of Lewis’s apartment and seizure of "all electronic devices" (cell phones, tablets, computers, storage media), plus documents and indicia of the crime.
- During execution of the warrant, an occupant threw a firearm out a window; officers recovered the gun and seized six cell phones and a tablet. Griffith was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Griffith moved to suppress the gun and electronic evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and was overbroad; the district court denied suppression under the Leon good-faith exception. Griffith was convicted and appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit majority reversed, holding the warrant lacked probable cause to search the home for any cell phone owned by Griffith, was overbroad in authorizing seizure of all electronic devices regardless of ownership, the good-faith exception did not apply, and the gun (thrown in response to the announced warrant) must be suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Griffith's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search Lewis’s apartment for Griffith’s cell phone(s) | Affidavit contained no particularized facts that Griffith owned a cell phone, that any phone would be at the residence, or that a phone would contain evidence of the year-old homicide | Reliance on generalities about gang communications and the high prevalence of cell phones supports a commonsense inference of evidence on a phone in the home | No probable cause: general statements about ubiquity of phones and gang use insufficient to justify home search for any phone belonging to Griffith |
| Particularity / overbreadth of warrant (seizing all electronic devices) | Warrant unlawfully authorized seizure of devices belonging to third parties unrelated to the investigation | Warrant should be read narrowly (with affidavit) or officers would later obtain separate warrants to search devices’ contents; good faith reliance justified seizure | Warrant overbroad: authorization to seize all electronic devices irrespective of ownership was constitutionally invalid |
| Applicability of Leon good-faith exception | Affidavit was ‘‘bare bones’’ regarding nexus and device ownership; overbreadth and weak nexus make reliance objectively unreasonable | Officers reasonably relied on a magistrate’s warrant; affiant’s training, experience, and investigative facts made belief in probable cause reasonable | Good-faith exception inapplicable: affidavit and overbroad warrant were so deficient that objective good-faith reliance was unreasonable |
| Admissibility of firearm thrown from apartment after officers announced the warrant | Firearm was discarded in response to the announcement of an invalid warrant; abandonment was not voluntary and evidence must be suppressed | Even if the warrant was later invalidated, the gun was abandoned before entry and Hodari D. supports admissibility | Suppress gun: abandonment induced by officers’ announcement of an invalid warrant is unlawful, so the gun is the fruit of an unlawful search/seizure and must be excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes the probable cause/totality-of-the-circumstances test for warrants)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cell phones’ pervasiveness and privacy interests)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (warrant so deficient that good-faith reliance unreasonable)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (search-warrant nexus: probable cause that the object of the search is in the place to be searched)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (nexus requirement between item to be seized and criminal behavior)
- Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (scope of search depends on specific places where items may be found)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (claiming a warrant can eliminate a resident’s right to resist)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (knock-and-announce principles and remedy considerations)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (abandonment/consent issues when a suspect flees or does not submit to authority)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (invalidity of indiscriminate or exploratory searches)
- Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (care in searches for innocuous, lawful items)
- United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (discusses good-faith exception in context of an overbroad warrant)