United States v. Wurie
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9937
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Wurie was lawfully arrested for distributing crack cocaine and taken to the police station, where items including a gray Verizon LG cell phone were seized from him.
- Officers observed incoming calls on the phone labeled 'my house' and, in plain view, accessed the phone’s call log and then the associated number.
- A web search using the number tied to 'my house' revealed an address on Silver Street linked to Manny Cristal, and officers obtained a warrant to search a residence.
- In the Silver Street apartment, officers found a sleeping child and, after obtaining a separate warrant, seized 215 grams of crack cocaine, a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, paraphernalia, and cash.
- Wurie moved to suppress the warrantless search of his cell phone; the district court denied the motion, and he was convicted on three counts and sentenced to 262 months in prison.
- On appeal, the First Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment does not authorize warrantless searches of data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee's person.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cell phone data searches are permitted under the search-incident-to-arrest rule | Wurie | Wurie | No; categorically unlawful under Chimel |
| Whether Chimel rationales justify a cell phone data search incident to arrest | Wurie | Wurie | Not justified; data searches fall outside Chimel |
| Whether good-faith exception applies to the challenged search | Wurie | Government | Not applicable or not controlling; reverse denial on other grounds |
| Whether exigent circumstances could justify a warrantless cell phone data search | Wurie | Government | Exigent circumstances may justify in some cases, but not here |
Key Cases Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (basis of search-incident-to-arrest doctrine; aims to disarm and preserve evidence)
- Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (full search of the person incident to lawful arrest; justification not dependent on likelihood of finding evidence)
- Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1974) (clothing searches post-arrest; preservation of destructible evidence)
- Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977) (rejected searches of luggage not immediately associated with arrestee; independent of Chimel)
- Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits to search incident to arrest in vehicle context; scope must be commensurate with purposes)
- Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2012) (cell phone data searches; balance privacy vs. officer safety and evidence preservation)
- United States v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc; reasonableness balancing for warrantless forensic device searches)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (U.S. 2013) (totality-of-circumstances approach to exigent circumstances; not a bright-line rule)