Willis v. State, 148 So. 3d 480

In Feb 2012 Willis was stopped for a broken tag light; officer found his license suspended and arrested him. Officers decided to tow the vehicle and performed an inventory search.
During inventory officers found small quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine in pill bottles and an electronic scale; one pill bottle bore a passenger’s name and that passenger was arrested. No drug charges were filed against Willis.
Willis asked officers to retrieve his cell phone from the truck; the officer who retrieved it opened and browsed the phone and observed numerous images of child pornography.
After that warrantless viewing, officers obtained a search warrant that described the prior phone viewing and sought permission to search call logs, messages, and photographs. The magistrate issued the warrant.
Willis moved to suppress all evidence from the phone; the motion was denied, he pled nolo contendere to 20 counts of possession of child pornography while reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The district court, applying Smallwood II and Riley, held the initial warrantless phone search violated the Fourth Amendment, concluded the good-faith exception did not save the evidence, and suppressed both the pre-warrant and warrant-obtained photographs (fruit of the poisonous tree), reversing and remanding for dismissal of the counts.

Issue	Willis's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Were officers required to obtain a warrant before searching phone content seized after arrest?	Warrant required; warrantless search violated Fourth Amendment.	Search was lawful under existing precedent (Smallwood I) at the time.	Warrant required per Smallwood II and Riley; warrantless search unconstitutional.
Does the good-faith exception (Davis) save the evidence where officers relied on Smallwood I?	Good-faith exception does not apply because Smallwood I was not a Supreme Court or state supreme court decision.	Officers reasonably relied on binding precedent Smallwood I (Pardo) so exclusionary rule should not apply.	Good-faith exception not applicable; single-district precedent was insufficient for objectively reasonable reliance here.
Are photographs discovered after a warrant based in part on the unconstitutional search admissible?	They are tainted fruit and must be suppressed.	Warrant was valid; evidence obtained under it should be admissible.	Photographs obtained under the warrant are fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed.
Should the change in law (Smallwood II and Riley) be applied prospectively only?	Willis: retroactive suppression is proper.	State: new rule could be prospective; earlier reliance on precedent should avoid suppression.	Court rejects prospective-only approach and applies precedent to suppress evidence, but certifies a question of great public importance about binding precedent for Davis.

Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court holding a warrant is required to search cell-phone data incident to arrest; good-faith exception did not apply)
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (warrant required to search digital contents of cell phones seized incident to arrest)
Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith exception applies where police reasonably rely on binding appellate precedent)
Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992) (in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind Florida trial courts)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)