92 F.4th 605
6th Cir.2024Background
- Robert Whipple was arrested in connection with a series of Knoxville, Tennessee bank robberies committed in early March 2020.
- Law enforcement subpoenaed Walmart for records of a specific purchase (red rain poncho, markers, manila envelopes) linked to Whipple and used surveillance footage to identify him.
- Whipple was arrested at a hotel and his car—a yellow Dodge Challenger—was seized and later searched pursuant to a warrant, revealing incriminating evidence.
- Agents also seized and searched Whipple’s phone; technical delays meant full data extraction occurred months after the warrant's expiration, primarily due to passcode issues and COVID-19 delays.
- Whipple moved to suppress evidence from the Walmart subpoena, the seizure/search of his car, and the delayed search of his phone; all motions were denied by the district court.
- Whipple pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Walmart subpoena for purchase info | Violated expectation of privacy in purchasing history, warrant needed | Voluntary disclosure to Walmart; third-party doctrine applies | Subpoena valid under third-party doctrine |
| Warrantless seizure of car | Seizure without warrant made evidence inadmissible | Probable cause existed; automobile exception applies | Automobile exception justified seizure & search |
| Delayed search of cellphone | Search beyond warrant's expiration rendered evidence inadmissible | Analysis post-warrant execution is permitted under law | No violation; search was a valid continuation |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (expectation of privacy analysis)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (third-party doctrine regarding records voluntarily shared)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in business records)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583 (seizure of car from public lot permissible with probable cause)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (ready mobility justifies automobile exception)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (reduced expectation of privacy in vehicles)
- Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (justifies warrantless search of immobilized car)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (distinguishing baggage and automobile seizures)