United States v. Thomsin Pierre, 698 F. App'x 604

Thomsin Pierre was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 and appealed his conviction.
Police detained Pierre (a non-arrest stop) and seized his cell phones; evidence from the phones was admitted at trial.
Pierre moved to suppress the phone evidence, arguing the plain-view doctrine did not apply because officers lacked lawful access during the stop and the phones’ incriminating nature was not immediately apparent.
The district court denied the suppression motion; Pierre appealed that denial.
At trial, two co-conspirators testified Pierre supplied the purchase funds; officers observed Pierre at the failed drug buy, repossessing a blue bag of cash, fleeing and throwing objects, and admitting post-Miranda that the cash was his and saying he would buy a “car” (a well-known code word for cocaine).
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that even if admitting the phone evidence were erroneous, the error was harmless because the other evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plain-view justified admission of evidence from phones seized during a non-arrest detention	Officers lacked lawful access to phones and incriminating nature was not immediately apparent	Any error in admitting phone evidence was harmless given overwhelming other proof	Court avoided deciding plain-view application; held any error was harmless and affirmed conviction

United States v. Hands, 184 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948 (11th Cir.) (error is harmless if other evidence so overwhelming defendant not prejudiced)
United States v. Drosten, 819 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir.) (discussing reliance on unconstitutionally obtained evidence)
United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression rulings: facts for clear error, legal application de novo)