Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a limited warrantless search of a lawfully arrested defendant’s cellular telephone, confined to the recent call history and aimed at finding evidence related to the arrest offense, was permissible as a search incident to arrest. The court affirmed denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress and expressly left open whether broader searches of cellular telephones may be conducted without a warrant.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the warrantless examination of the recent call list on Phifer's cellular telephone violated the Fourth Amendment or article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- Whether a limited search of a cellular telephone seized incident to a lawful arrest is permissible when police have probable cause to believe the recent call list contains evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.
Holdings
- On the particular facts of the case, the limited examination of the recent call list on Phifer's cellular telephone was a permissible search incident to his lawful arrest.
- The court declined to decide whether cellular telephones may always or generally be searched without a warrant incident to a valid arrest, or what limits would apply to more extensive searches.
Key quotations
“We decide only that on the particular facts of this case, where the defendant agrees his arrest was lawful and does not appear to challenge the seizure of his cellular telephone incident to that arrest, and where the officer performed only a limited search of the cellular telephone's recent call history for evidence directly relating to the crime for which the defendant was arrested, the defendant's motion to suppress properly was denied.” (790-791)
“For the reasons discussed, we hold that the limited search of the defendant's cellular telephone to examine the recent call list was a permissible search incident to the defendant's lawful arrest.” (798)
Factual background
Police officers observed Phifer participate in what they believed was a drug transaction and then arrested him on two outstanding drug-related warrants. During booking, police seized his cellular telephone and money. A detective made a few simple manipulations of the telephone to examine its recent incoming and outgoing call list, discovering several calls from the telephone number of a person from whom police had recovered cocaine.
Procedural history
Phifer was charged in the Boston Municipal Court with distribution of a class B substance and a drug violation near a school or park. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge denied his motion to suppress the contents of his cellular telephone. A single justice granted leave for an interlocutory appeal under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(a)(2) and ordered the appeal to proceed in the Supreme Judicial Court.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Boston Municipal Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.