938 F.3d 1108
9th Cir.2019Background
- San Bernardino deputies attempted a traffic stop; Garay fled in a high-speed chase, crashed, and tried to run; officers arrested him and found cash and multiple illegal drugs on his person.
- The totaled vehicle was impounded; officers conducted an inventory search of the car before towing and recovered two loaded rifles, ammunition, and two cell phones (one claimed by the passenger); the guns, ammo, and phones were booked as evidence.
- State law enforcement obtained a warrant to search one phone based on an officer affidavit tying the circumstances (drugs, cash, guns) and the affiant’s training/experience about criminals photographing/communicating about guns; a subsequent federal warrant relied on similar facts plus collective law-enforcement experience about felons using phones to traffic guns.
- Photographs on the phone linked Garay to the recovered firearm; Garay moved to suppress the phone and its contents, arguing the phone’s seizure was unreasonable and the affidavits lacked probable cause.
- The district court denied suppression, finding the phone lawfully seized as part of an inventory search and the warrants supported by probable cause; Garay appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/abandonment of phone | Garay: leaving phone in totaled car and fleeing abandoned any privacy interest, so no standing to challenge search | Government: Garay abandoned any expectation of privacy; threshold bar to challenge | Court: Did not resolve abandonment; under Byrd standing not jurisdictional and proceeded to merits |
| Lawfulness of seizure (inventory search) | Garay: officers deviated from inventory policy (no complete inventory sheet), so search was pretextual rummaging | Government: car totaled and impounded; inventory search permitted to safeguard property and complied in material respects | Court: Seizure lawful as inventory search; administrative omissions alone did not show pretext or bad faith |
| Probable cause for warrants to search phone contents | Garay: affidavits relied on bare training-and-experience conclusions without sufficient supporting detail to connect phone to evidence | Government: affidavits recited facts (chase, arrest, drugs, cash, guns) plus officer experience that people photograph/communicate about guns, supporting a fair probability evidence would be on phone | Court: Affidavits provided a substantial basis for probable cause; magistrates could infer phone likely contained evidence; deference owed to probable-cause findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018) (Fourth Amendment standing is not jurisdictional; may be reached on the merits)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches of impounded vehicles are permissible caretaking exceptions)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory procedures valid if standardized and not a ruse for investigation)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches must not be a pretext to rummage for evidence)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Celestine, 324 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate review of magistrate's probable-cause determination)
- United States v. Wanless, 882 F.2d 1459 (9th Cir. 1989) (significant deviations from inventory procedures can invalidate inventory search)
- United States v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2003) (administrative errors alone insufficient to show inventory-search pretext without other indicia)
- United States v. Johnson, 889 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2018) (inventory exception not applicable when officers admit seizing items to search for evidence)
- United States v. Hendershot, 614 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1980) (affiants may state conclusions based on training and experience without detailed background)
- United States v. Fannin, 817 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1987) (magistrates may rely on officers' conclusions about where evidence is likely to be found)
- United States v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229 (9th Cir. 1993) (dual motives in inventory searches are permissible)