Summary
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception permitted police to inspect photographs stored on an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant. The court held that United States v. Robinson, involving a search of a cigarette package, was not factually or legally controlling because modern cell phones store and access extensive personal information. The case addresses the application of Florida’s constitutional conformity clause and the Fourth Amendment to warrantless cell-phone searches incident to arrest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether United States v. Robinson required Florida courts to permit a warrantless search of photographs and other data contained in a cell phone seized from an arrestee.
- Whether the search-incident-to-arrest exception permitted officers to access and search the contents of Smallwood's cell phone after the phone had been removed from his person and he had been secured in a police vehicle.
- Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the warrantless cell-phone search.
- Whether admission of the cell-phone photographs was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Holdings
- Robinson was neither factually nor legally on point with the search of a modern electronic cell phone, so Florida's conformity clause did not require Florida courts to apply Robinson to determine whether a warrant was necessary.
- Although officers may seize and take possession of a cell phone found on an arrestee during a lawful arrest, they must obtain a warrant before accessing and searching the phone's information, data, and content when the arrestee has been separated from the phone and there is no officer-safety or evidence-preservation exigency.
- The good-faith exception recognized in Davis v. United States did not apply because, unlike the automobile-search rule addressed in Davis, no United States Supreme Court bright-line rule authorized warrantless searches of cell-phone data under these circumstances.
- The erroneous admission of the cell-phone photographs was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and Smallwood was entitled to a new trial.
Key quotations
“Thus, pursuant to Gant, Officer Brown was constitutionally required to obtain a warrant before searching the contents of, and the data in, Smallwood’s electronic device cell phone.” (at 734-735)
“We further hold that, while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from Smallwood’s person during the search incident to arrest, a warrant was required before the information, data, and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement.” (at 741)
Factual background
Police arrested Cedric Tyrone Smallwood pursuant to a warrant for a convenience-store robbery and seized a cell phone from his person. After separating Smallwood from the phone by securing him in a police vehicle, Officer Brown accessed and searched the phone without a warrant and viewed digital photographs, including images of a handgun and money packaged in a manner resembling the robbery proceeds. The State later obtained a warrant, but the trial court admitted the photographs and Smallwood was convicted. The record contained no indication that the initial search was motivated by officer safety or a risk that evidence would be destroyed.
Procedural history
Smallwood was convicted by a jury of robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and received consecutive prison sentences. The trial court denied his motion to suppress photographs obtained during a warrantless search of his cell phone. The First District affirmed, relying principally on Robinson and Belton, and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court quashed the First District's decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The decision of the First District Court of Appeal was quashed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including proceedings reflecting Smallwood's entitlement to a new trial.