Case Name: Jeffrey FAWDRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2014-05-22
Citations: 139 So. 3d 868
Docket Number: No. SC11-1179
Parties: Jeffrey FAWDRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 139
Pages: 868–869

Head Matter:
Jeffrey FAWDRY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. SC11-1179.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 22, 2014.
Lara Nezami of Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami & Andux, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL; Trisha Meggs Pate, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.

Opinion:
LEWIS, J.
We have for review Fawdry v. State, 70 So.3d 626, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), in which the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order that denied a motion to suppress evidence found on a cellular phone without a search warrant. The First District certified the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE HOLDING IN U.S. v. ROBINSON, 414 U.S. 218 [94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427] (1973) ALLOW A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAINED WITHIN A CELL PHONE WHICH IS ON AN ARRESTEE'S PERSON AT THE TIME OF A VALID ARREST?
Id. at 630-31. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We stayed proceedings in this case pending the disposition of Smallwood v. State, 113 So.3d 724 (Fla.2013). When Smallwood became final, we issued an order directing Respondent to show cause why this Court should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the decision in Faw-dry, and remand for reconsideration in light of the decision in Smallwood. Respondent filed a response, but Petitioner did not reply.
Upon consideration of the response, we grant the petition for review, quash the decision in Fawdry, and remand this case to the First District Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with the decision in Smallwood.
It is so ordered.
POLSTON, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
CANADY, J., dissents.