Due Process #11

SILA in home, cell phones, and cars

SILA?

• Search incident to lawful arrest

• Allows officers who makes a lawful custodial arrest to conduct a contemporaneous warrantless search of:

  • arrestee’s person

  • areas within arrestees control

  • closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest

Rational behind SILA exception?

• A custodial arrest provides the suspect with the incentive to: flee, use any available weapons to resist or destroy evidence

• Allowed for

  • Officers safety

  • Preservation of evidence

For SILA, where does it allow an officer to search?

• The room of arrest and adjoining areas where persons may be hiding/launch a dangerous attack

  • makes sense in homes that they would want to search those areas because officers do not know who is there that could possibly be planning an attack

Chimel v. CA facts?

• Three police officers arrive at the petitioner's home, knock and announce themselves to the wife, the wife lets them in.

• They wait for the petitioner to arrive, which takes 15 minutes. When he arrives, hey show him the arrest warrant and ask him if they can look around

• Have arrest warrant and PC, however, not a search warrant

• He objects, but cops do search anyways even though no search warrant had been issued

  • Searched the entire 3 bedroom house, including the attic, garage, and a small workshop

  • Even asked the petitioners wife to move around contents in the drawers in the sewing room to get a better view

  • 45 minutes to an hour was the duration of the search, and items were seized; found some evidence

Chimel v. CA holding?

In favor of Chimel

Chimel v. CA reasoning?

• Officers exceeded the scope of SILA

• "incident to arrest" are limited to the area within the immediate control of the suspect; prohibited from rummaging through the entire house without a search warrant

• If they were allowed to search entire homes based on arrest warrant, they could use anything as a base to have full discretion to search entire home

  • However, the court is not giving them a ticket to search everywhere and anywhere

  • If allowed this type of search in this case, would be like having general warrants again, which we want to move on from

Riley v. CA facts?

• He was pulled over for a traffic violation, and then arrested and searched for possession of concealed and loaded firearms

• After search, found items associated w/ a street gang, as well as a "smart phone" that had text messages/contacts that interpreted him to be a member of the gang

• Detective looked through his phone off the basis that people involved in gangs "usually" record themselves, and he found a photograph of Riley standing in front of a car they suspected had been involved in a shooting a few weeks earlier

• He is then charged, tries to suppress the evidence, loses, and then is convicted for 15 yrs to life

Wurie v. Comm of MA facts?

• Flip phone seized

• Saw receiving calls as “home”, so, police looked at the call log and found the number and a photo of the women on the home screen and goes to his house based on information from the phone

• Got a search warrant and seized evidence

Issue for both Wurie and Riley?

Can police without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested?

Holding for both Wurie and Riley?

Both win

Reasoning for Wurie and Riley?

• Officer safety?

  • Data on a phone harms no one; just what is on the phone such as behind the case, but not the digital content

• Preservation of evidence

  • How will they destroy evidence if the police have the phone?

    • Could remote wipe or data encrypt what is on the phone

    • Court says that it’s a third party doing that, not the defendant, so SILA not extended

    • Also says there are a lot of alternatives that could prevent evidence encryption or wiping

Biometrics?

• Passwords cannot be compelled w/o a warrant

• Up in the air

  • In 2019, federal judge rules does not have right to force 

MA and biometrics

• Passcodes → Article 12, Commonwealth v. Jones; forcing person to enter phone passwords can violate 12, unless state knows specifically what and where evidence is

• Biometric → no SJC ruling yet, likely won’t agree

Belton v. NY facts?

• pulled over, none of the occupants owned the vehicle, officer then smelled burnt marijuana and saw more evidence

• placed under arrest, patted down each of them, placed them at the side of car and also reads them their rights; and searches car

• specifically passenger compartment and found cocaine in the jacket

Belton v. NY holding?

In favor of the US

Belton v. NY reasoning?

• Jacket was in Belton’s immediate control, pursuant in Chimel

• Under OG Chimel rules (SILA) - officer’s safety and preservation of evidence

• Officer can search an area where somebody was a recent occupant in 

  • passenger compartment

    • And front and back seat

• Containers explained as:

  • Glove compartment, console, reciprocals (duffel, luggage, boxes, and the like) - does not include OG trunk

Wingspan?

• outstretched arms from tip of middle finger to other tip of middle finger

• To determine what is and is not within an arrestee’s control

• determining if SILA applies 

Immediate Control - MA

• Require that SILA be truly contemporaneous with the arrest and tied to officer safety or evidence preservation

AZ v. Gant facts?

• Went to house, saw Gant, ran license, then came back because he had a suspended license

• They see Gant and arrest him, and put in back of patrol car

• Search his car, and found a gun and cocaine in pocket of jacket on backseat

AZ v. Gant issue?

Is a search conducted by police officers after handcuffing and securing the defendant a violation of the 4th amendment?

AZ v. Gant holding?

In favor of Gant

AZ v. Gant reasoning?

• Because facts of case do not meet Chimel, it exceed the scope of SILA

• There was no officer safety issue because he was in the patrol car

• Preservation of evidence

  • Arrested for a traffic violation - there was not going to be more evidence for this arrest

• SILA does not apply

Gant 2 fold holding?

• Rejects broad reading of Belton

  • Returns to reasons for SILA under Chimel: recent occupants and within reaching distance of passenger compartment at time of search

• Follows Chimel

  • SILA to a vehicle unique/justified when reason to believe evidence is linked to the crime they were arrested for might be found in vehicle

Under Gant, SILA car if either Chimel reasoning is met:

• Arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of vehicle at time of search

• or, it is reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence relevant to the offense of the arrest