State v. Carroll, 2010 WI 8

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reviewed whether evidence obtained from a cell phone pursuant to a warrant was tainted by the officer’s warrantless browsing of the phone’s image gallery. The court held that the initial seizure and continued possession of the phone were permissible, the gallery search was improper, but answering an incoming call was justified by exigent circumstances. The intercepted call supplied an untainted independent basis for the search warrant, so the court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the suppression order.

Holdings

1. The officer's order that Carroll drop the unknown object, seizure of the phone, and viewing of the marijuana image displayed on the open phone were reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Wisconsin Constitution article I, section 11.
2. Police could continue to possess the cell phone while seeking a search warrant because they had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of criminal activity and exigent circumstances created a risk that evidence could be deleted or lost.
3. Browsing through the phone's image gallery without a warrant was unlawful and produced tainted evidence, but answering the incoming call was permissible because probable cause and exigent circumstances justified that limited warrantless intrusion.
4. The search warrant was valid because the untainted intercepted call, combined with the officer's knowledge of drug-trafficking practices, Carroll's juvenile record, and the plain-view marijuana image, supplied probable cause independently of the tainted image-gallery evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the initial seizure of Carroll's cell phone and viewing of the marijuana image violated the Fourth Amendment or Article I, section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution.
2. Whether police could continue to possess the cell phone while seeking a warrant.
3. Whether browsing through the phone's image gallery without a warrant was lawful.
4. Whether answering an incoming call on the seized phone was justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances.
5. Whether the intercepted call and other untainted information supplied an independent source of probable cause sufficient to validate the search warrant despite the tainted image-gallery evidence.

Disposition

affirmed