ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Motion to Suppress Denied in Part and Granted in Part -- Defendant was charged with "two counts of production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), one count of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)." The charges stemmed from an investigation into a report that a man driving a white SUV had exposed himself to a young girl near the Dixie Elementary School in San Rafael, California.

 

On their way to interview the victim, officers saw a white SUV approaching them. According to police, the car lacked a front license plate and the driver seemed to be purposefully avoiding eye contact. The officers stopped the vehicle. During the stop, one officer noticed the car had lots of fishing-related stickers, and he recalled an earlier report of attempted luring of young girls who described a similar white vehicle. The officer asked that the victim be brought to the car to see if she could identify the driver. The victim positively identified the driver and he was placed under arrest. During a search of defendant, officers located an iPhone and immediately began searching it. The phone contained images of a young girl exposing herself to defendant and vice versa. Back at the station, officers also discovered videos of the same girl and defendant on the iPhone. Based on those images and videos, officers applied for and received search warrants for defendant's residences, his iPhone, iPod, and other computer media. A week later, officers conducted an inventory search of defendant's vehicle and located an iPod in the center console. Officers reviewed the iPod and found over 400 pornographic images. Among other things, defendant moved to suppress the evidence found through the warrantless searches of his iPhone and the iPod, arguing that they were unconstitutional. The government defended the searches, arguing that the inspection of the iPhone was incident to a valid arrest and that the inspection of the iPod was part of routine inventory search of defendant's vehicle. The District Court concluded, just as the California Supreme Court did in People v. Diaz, 2011 WL 6158 (Cal. Jan. 3, 2011), that the search of defendant's iPhone was justified under current U.S. Supreme Court doctrine. Specifically, the Court cited Robinson, United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974), in which the Court held that during a lawful arrest, police may search the arrestee and the area within the control of the arrestee without a warrant. The issue, the Court said, is whether a cell phone is an object that is "part of the person" or merely "within an arrestee's immediate control." The District Court elected to follow Diaz and held that absent a contrary ruling by the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, a cell phone found on an arrestee's person can be search as part of a valid arrest. (The Court's ruling suggests that if the cell phone is not being carried in the arrestee's clothing, this exception might not apply.) Defendant's motion to suppress was denied. As for the iPod, the Court noted that the government provided no information regarding the standard procedures used to conduct inventory searches, and thus the Court could not conclude that the search was justified. The government also argued that the evidence was admissible under the "inevitable discovery" doctrine, but again, absent evidence of the standard procedures used to search the vehicle, there was no way for the Court to conclude that the iPod's discovery was in fact inevitable. The motion to suppress the iPod evidence was granted.