United States v. Gomez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97975

Two kilograms of cocaine were seized from a DHL hub package originating in Costa Rica and addressed to Choice One Realty ( Defendant's employer in Miami).
The package was opened after a canine alerted to narcotics; cocaine was found in a horse saddle cavity.
Agents resealed the package and planned a late-afternoon delivery to Gomez, but did not obtain an anticipatory warrant before the delivery.
After Gomez picked up the package, agents stopped him, cuffed him, and searched his vehicle, recovering an operable cell phone among other items.
Agents reviewed the cell phone’s call log at the scene, then allowed a controlled exchange with a co-conspirator, Javier Almeida, via text messages captured on the phone.
A after-the-fact search warrant for the cell phone was issued; Gomez moved to suppress the cell phone data as an unlawful warrantless search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gomez has standing to challenge the cell phone search	Gomez has privacy in his cell phone call and text data.	Gomez lacks Fourth Amendment standing in the cell phone data.	Yes; Gomez had Standing to challenge the cell phone.
Whether the Caller ID 'Javier Blue' was a plain-view observation	Plain-view seizure did not authorize a search of the phone’s contents.	Viewing the Caller ID was a search triggering Fourth Amendment protections.	Plain-view identification of 'Javier Blue' permitted as non-search.
Whether the cell phone call log history search was valid under the search incident to arrest	Call log history may be searched incident to arrest to preserve evidence.	Gant narrows the scope of warrantless searches post-arrest; call logs require a warrant.	Permissible as a valid search incident to arrest.
Whether exigent circumstances justified accessing the cell phone	Exigency due to risk of evidence loss and ongoing contact with co-conspirators.	No exigency since Gomez was secured and could not threaten evidence.	Exigent circumstances justified answering and continuing communications with co-conspirator.
Whether the independent source doctrine cures any potential Fourth Amendment issue	Evidence could be admissible if independently sourced.	No independent source since initial search was unlawful.	Not necessary to reach due to valid warrantless searches under other exceptions.

United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (privacy in call/text data; warrant not required under custodial arrest so long as valid)
United States v. De La Paz, 43 F.Supp.2d 370 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (cell phones warrant protection; applies to privacy in calls/texts)
City of Ontario v. Quon, 613 U.S. 100 (2010) (privacy in text messages on cell phones)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain view doctrine requirements)
Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; relevance to post-Chimel scope)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (foundational Chimel framework for searches incident to arrest)
United States v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (vehicle searches incident to arrest prior to Gant narrowing rule)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (scope of searches incident to arrest on person)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (plain view and reasonable arrival at scene; exigent considerations)
United States v. Wall, 2008 WL 5381412 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (distinguishes temporality of search at scene vs. station; not binding precedent)