Opinion ID: 2773722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Suppression of Cell Phone Images

Text: Aguilera contends that images taken from his cell phone must be suppressed because the government lacked probable cause to search the phone and because the authorities “searched” the phone before obtaining a search warrant. We conclude that the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Celestine, 324 F.3d 1095, 1102 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the government’s actions prior to the issuance of the September 7, 2010, warrants cause us concern as to whether there was a constitutional violation.1 On August 27, 2010, Detective Posadas made copies of the files on Aguilera’s cell phones. Although the parties had an agreement in place to allow for “mirror images” of the data on the cell phones to be made in the absence of a warrant,2 Posadas admitted in his trial testimony that he did not make “mirror images” of the phones and, in fact, that the device used to copy the cell phones’ data is not capable of making a “mirror image.” Additionally, and perhaps most concerning, Posadas testified that he reviewed the contents of the phone while copying the data. In denying the motion to suppress in this case, the district court ruled without holding an evidentiary hearing that, based on the agreement between the parties, the government’s search on August 27, 2010, was reasonable. Of course, “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” and a warrantless search “is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the 1 We note that the government did not raise the independent source exception, see Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 541 (1988), to the evidence retrieved from the August 27, 2010, search before the district court and thus has waived such argument. Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011). 2 The agreement also provided that “[t]he Government will not examine or search the copy of the data made pursuant to this agreement unless specifically authorized by the Court in a future order.” warrant requirement.” Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given that the parties had an agreement in place to provide for certain steps to be taken by the government without a warrant, it seems clear that if the government’s actions fell under the agreement, there would be no constitutional violation. However, the trial testimony by Posadas, which occurred subsequent to the district court’s ruling on the motion to suppress, illustrates the potential discrepancies between what was provided for in the agreement and what actually occurred. The record is limited on this ground as no evidentiary hearing was conducted; thus, we are left only with Posadas’s trial testimony. Accordingly, we believe the prudent course of action is to remand this case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. The evidentiary hearing should focus on whether the government’s actions prior to obtaining the warrant violated the parties’ agreement and amounted to an unconstitutional search, in particular whether the method of copying the data was substantively different from making a “mirror image” of the data and the impact and scope of Posadas’s viewing the contents of the cell phone as the copy was being made. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. FILED United States v. Aguilera, 12-10441 JAN 27 2015