United States v. Gholston
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9301
| E.D. Mich. | 2014Background
- Two masked robbers robbed a BP gas station in Detroit on February 12, 2013; one robber brandished a long gun and the cash register was taken.
- Cashier identified Defendant (nicknamed “Reese”) as someone who frequented the station; surveillance linked Defendant to the robbery and led to his February 21, 2013 arrest.
- Defendant was found with a T-Mobile cell phone upon arrest; officers seized the phone but did not examine its contents at that time.
- On March 4, 2013, TFO Gavel sought a search warrant to examine the seized cell phone, asserting that the device would reveal who possessed it and evidence of planning and coordination among participants.
- Magistrate Judge Grand issued the warrant, and federal officers later searched the phone, reportedly uncovering text messages and images showing Defendant in masks similar to those worn during the robbery.
- Defendant moved to suppress the phone’s contents; the court denied the motion, finding the seizure and warrant-based search lawful under Fourth Amendment principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seizure of the cell phone incident to arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. | Gholston argues seizure was unlawful. | Gholston contends seizure was improper because unlikely to contain immediately incriminating evidence. | No Fourth Amendment violation; seizure lawful pending warrant. |
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause and whether good-faith reliance on the magistrate’s warrant was justified. | Gholston asserts the affidavit was generic and lacked nexus. | Government contends the affidavit had sufficient particularized facts and reliance was reasonable. | Affidavit provided a minimally sufficient nexus; good-faith reliance applied; warrant valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2009) (upholds seizure and limited search of a cell phone incident to arrest when necessary to preserve evidence)
- United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizes limitations of warrantless cell-phone searches and discusses preservation of evidence concepts)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (approves retrieving call records/text messages from a cell phone incident to arrest)
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (disallows broad warrantless searches of cell-phone data incident to arrest due to privacy concerns)
- United States v. Respress, 9 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 1993) (permits seizure of belongings based on probable cause to secure a warrant to search to prevent loss/destruction of evidence)