612 F. App'x 664
4th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Jose Delores Vanegas was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- On prior appeal this court affirmed his convictions; the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Riley v. California.
- Riley held that a warrant is generally required to search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest.
- Vanegas contended on remand that text messages recovered from his cell phone/data cards were obtained by an unconstitutional warrantless search in light of Riley.
- The Government argued Vanegas waived any Fourth Amendment challenge by failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress.
- The district court record shows Vanegas raised the search objection only at sentencing; the court did not find good cause to excuse the failure to file a timely suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Vanegas' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Riley invalidates the use of text messages from Vanegas’ seized cell phone/data cards | The phone/data card search was warrantless and therefore unconstitutional under Riley | Vanegas waived the Fourth Amendment challenge by not filing a pretrial suppression motion | Waiver: Vanegas failed to timely move to suppress; Riley does not affect the conviction because the claim was waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrant generally required to search cell phone contents)
- United States v. Moore, 769 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2014) (untimely suppression motion is waived absent good cause)
- United States v. Sweat, [citation="573 F. App'x 292"] (4th Cir.) (noting courts rarely excuse untimely suppression motions)
- United States v. Vanegas, [citation="560 F. App'x 191"] (4th Cir.) (prior panel opinion affirming convictions)