United States v. Wicks
2014 CAAF LEXIS 173
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Appellant faced a court-martial with multiple specifications under the UCMJ, including Article 92, Article 120, and Article 134, and a suppression motion targeted at cellphone-derived evidence.
- The military judge initially granted suppression of the cellphone evidence, but the Government’s Article 62 appeal led the CCA to vacate and return the matter for review.
- Key factual sequence: TSgt Roberts stole Appellant’s phone, later viewed messages and a video on it, and provided the phone to investigators; subsequent government searches expanded far beyond anything Roberts saw.
- Three government searches followed: Rico’s initial review, Bexar County’s SIM/cell analysis, and Global CompuSearch’s extensive text-extraction, with no warrant obtained.
- The private search by TSgt Roberts raised questions about the scope of permissible government review under the private search doctrine and the container analogy for cell phones.
- The military judge and the appellate court ultimately held the Government’s searches violated Appellant’s Fourth Amendment privacy, leading to exclusion of the resulting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone | Appellant had privacy rights in his phone and data. | Government argued privacy was frustrated by Roberts’s private search but rights persisted. | Yes; Appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Whether the Government’s searches of the cellphone were lawful under the Fourth Amendment | Searches exceeded private search scope and lacked warrants. | Timeouts and private-search doctrine justified subsequent government searches. | No; searches violated Fourth Amendment and were unlawfully broad. |
| Whether the private search doctrine limits the scope of subsequent government searches | Government must mirror private search; otherwise privacy remains. | Runyan container approach allows broader subsequent searches. | The private search doctrine limits, but in this case, government searches exceeded the private search. |
| Whether the inevitable discovery exception or other exclusionary rule rationale justifies suppression | Inevitable discovery would not supply lawful means; suppression warranted. | There could be independent discovery; exclusion may deter misconduct. | Inevitable discovery not proven; exclusionary rule applied due to overreach. |
| Whether the record supports excluding the evidence obtained from the cellphone | Evidence obtained unlawfully should be excluded. | Some or all evidence could be admissible if within scope of private search. | Evidence excluded; military judge’s ruling upheld in part and reversed the CCA. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (cellphone privacy requires warrant absent exception)
- United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (cellphone searches require probable cause and warrant absent exception)
- Runyan, 275 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (container analogy for scope of private search)
- Simpson, 904 F.2d 607 (11th Cir. 1990) (private search vs government search of a container)
- Bowman, 215 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2000) (government search permissible if mirroring private search)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (private searches and fourth amendment limits)
- United States v. Dease, 71 M.J. 116 (CAAF 2012) (inevitable discovery standard in military context)