990 F.3d 528
7th Cir.2021Background
- In October 2012 FBI agents stopped Robert Berrios, arrested him, and seized a Samsung flip phone from the vehicle; agents performed a warrantless forensic extraction (Cellbrite) of the phone.
- The extraction produced phone number, contacts, call records, photos, and cell-site information; agents also recovered clothing, guns, and a dealership receipt linking Berrios to the vehicle.
- The government later conceded the search was unlawful under Riley v. California but argued the Davis good-faith exception applied because then-controlling precedent permitted similar searches.
- The district court denied Berrios’s suppression motion; he was convicted on multiple Hobbs Act and firearms counts and sentenced to 360 months.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit held Davis did not justify extending precedent to the warrantless, comprehensive extraction here, but found the particular phone-derived evidence admitted at trial had independent sources or was harmlessly redundant and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless forensic extraction of Berrios’s cellphone must be suppressed under Riley | Berrios: Riley renders the search unconstitutional; suppression required | Gov: At the time of the search controlling precedent allowed such searches; Davis good-faith exception applies | Court: Riley governs; Davis does not rescue this broader search because it extended precedent beyond established limits |
| Whether the Davis good-faith exception applies when the governing law was unsettled or required extending precedent | Berrios: Davis applies only to reasonable reliance on binding precedent, not to unsettled law or extensions | Gov: Seventh Circuit precedent (Flores-Lopez, Gary) supported the officers’ reliance | Court: Davis cannot be used to excuse mistaken efforts to extend controlling precedent; Davis does not apply here |
| Whether Flores-Lopez and Gary authorized the comprehensive extraction performed here | Berrios: Those cases were limited and did not authorize wholesale cellphone content searches | Gov: Those cases supported searches incident to arrest and justified reliance | Court: Flores-Lopez and Gary were limited; they did not authorize the comprehensive extraction at issue |
| Whether admission of the phone-derived evidence requires reversal or is harmless/independently sourced | Berrios: Phone evidence was material and tainted; reversal required | Gov: The specific items used at trial (phone number, contacts) had independent sources and other evidence proved identity and participation | Court: The admitted phone items had independent sources or were redundant; any error was harmless — conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cellphones generally require a warrant)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (good-faith exception applies when officers reasonably rely on binding precedent)
- United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (Seventh Circuit limited holding authorizing only minimal phone-data intrusions)
- United States v. Gary, 790 F.3d 704 (Seventh Circuit decision relied on by government but limited in scope)
- United States v. Jenkins, 850 F.3d 912 (refusal to apply Davis to extend precedent)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (independent-source doctrine)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery / evidentiary preservation principles)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (retroactivity of new rules to pending cases)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to arrest authority)