Court Opinion

ID: 7399502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 01:42:33.987815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:53.190261
License: Public Domain

LOCKEMY, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree with the dissent's Fourth Amendment analysis and would find Moore's constitutional rights were violated when officers searched his cell phone without a warrant. However, I would find the information used during trial-the identity of the owner of the cell phone-would have been inevitably discovered because officers obtained a valid search warrant prior to performing a full forensic search. Therefore, I concur in part and dissent in part.
As each of my colleagues recognize, the Fourth Amendment ensures "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...." U.S. Cost. amend. IV. Furthermore, as the lead opinion notes, "the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness.' " Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). "In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement." Riley v. California , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014).
The lead opinion indicates the officer's actions in removing the SIM card and processing the information contained therein was not a search under the Fourth Amendment because Moore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information recovered. I disagree that the Fourth Amendment **181analysis should focus on the information searched, and instead should focus on what information could have been searched. The SIM card contained more than simply the cell phone's number, and police could have accessed that information during their search. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in Riley ,
a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home, it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form-unless the phone is.
Id . at 2491.
I would find Moore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data contained on his cell phone, and any intrusion into that data constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, I disagree with *593the State that Moore's reasonable expectation of privacy was abandoned as the facts do not support such a finding in this case. See State v. Dupree , 319 S.C. 454, 457, 462 S.E.2d 279, 281 (1995) ("In the law of search and seizure, ... the question is whether the defendant has, in discarding the property, relinquished his reasonable expectation of privacy so that its seizure is reasonable within the limits of the Fourth Amendment." (quoting City of St. Paul v. Vaughn , 306 Minn. 337, 237 N.W.2d 365, 370-71 (1975) )); State v. Brown , 414 S.C. 14, 23, 776 S.E.2d 917, 922 (Ct. App. 2015), cert. granted , (S.C. Sup. Ct. Order dated August 8, 2017) ("Whether such an expectation of privacy has been abandoned 'is determined on the basis of the objective facts available to the investigating officers, not on the basis of the owner's subjective intent." (quoting United States v. Tugwell , 125 F.3d 600, 602 (8th Cir. 1997) )).
Because Moore had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data contained on his cell phone and he did not abandon that expectation, I would find the State violated the Fourth Amendment by performing a warrantless search of that information. I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion because I believe the State would have inevitably discovered the same information using the valid warrant it later secured to continue its search of the phone. See Nix v. Williams , 467 U.S. 431, 447, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984) ( "If the **182government can prove that the evidence would have been obtained inevitably and, therefore, would have been admitted regardless of any overreaching by the police, there is no rational basis to keep that evidence from the jury in order to ensure the fairness of the trial proceedings.").
I recognize police included information gleaned from the warrantless search in their warrant affidavit. In State v. Spears , this court faced a similar issue regarding illegally obtained information used in a warrant. 393 S.C. 466, 713 S.E.2d 324 (Ct. App. 2011). The court excised the offending information from the warrant affidavit, and analyzed the remaining portions of the affidavit to determine if probable cause still existed to support the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant. Id . at 483, 713 S.E.2d at 333.
Here, I would find any information about the owner of the phone should be removed from the warrant affidavit and the remaining language should be considered under our test for probable cause. The affidavit would thus read:
On 2/25/2013 at approx. 14:13 Hrs. Deputies with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office responded to 7680 Warren H. Abernathy Hwy. In reference to a shooting. Upon arrival they found the Victim, Travis Hall had been shot. Hall was transported to SRMC. Through further investigation and the processing of the Victim's vehicle an AT&T ZTE Model Z331 cell phone serial number [Redacted] was found inside the Victim's vehicle. This search warrant is needed for the furtherance of this investigation to obtain information from the phone that can either implicate, or clear any individual from any involvement in this incident.
I agree with the lead opinion that this warrant affidavit would support a finding of probable cause. See State v. Dunbar , 361 S.C. 240, 253, 603 S.E.2d 615, 622 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place."). Accordingly, I would find the evidence would have been inevitably found pursuant to the valid search warrant, regardless of the initially unlawful search.
**183Finally, I wish to echo the sentiments expressed in the lead opinion and the dissent cautioning officers about the practice of searching cell phones without warrants. Chief Justice Roberts stated well the importance with which courts must protect individual's rights to the "privacies of life" that are contained on cell phones. Riley , 134 S.Ct. at 2495. "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought." Id . There were no cell phones at Valley Forge. The principle of fighting and dying to make sure a soldier of the king is not allowed to kick in a citizen's *594door, however, is not very different than keeping a person's utmost personal information safe from unreasonable government intrusion. In the context of a search incident to an arrest, the Supreme Court created a bright line rule-"get a warrant." Id . While this case does not warrant the creation of such a rule in cases outside the search incident to an arrest exception, officers should tread lightly around digital information, and consider the implications of failing to obtain a warrant before searching an individual's cell phone.