Smallwood v. State
113 So. 3d 724, 2013 WL 1830961, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 271 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not permit law enforcement to conduct a warrantless search of the data on a cell phone seized from an arrestee's person once the arrestee has been secured and the phone is in the exclusive control of the police.
Facts:
- On January 24, 2008, a masked man with a gun robbed a convenience store in Jacksonville, taking cash and a handgun.
- The store clerk recognized the robber's voice as that of a regular customer known as 'Dooley'.
- Witnesses saw a man running from the store, and one witness identified 'Dooley' as Cedric Tyrone Smallwood.
- On February 4, 2008, Officer Ike Brown arrested Smallwood pursuant to a warrant for the robbery.
- During the arrest, Officer Brown seized Smallwood's cell phone from his person.
- After securing Smallwood in a police vehicle, Officer Brown conducted a warrantless search of the cell phone's contents.
- The search revealed digital photos taken after the robbery, depicting a handgun similar to the one stolen and Smallwood holding large amounts of cash folded and secured with rubber bands.
Procedural Posture:
- More than a year after the arrest, the arresting officer disclosed the existence of the cell phone photos to the prosecutor.
- The State then obtained a search warrant to view the images on the phone.
- At trial, Smallwood filed a motion to suppress the photos, arguing the initial warrantless search by the officer was unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the photos were admitted into evidence.
- A jury convicted Smallwood of robbery and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Smallwood, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the First District Court of Appeal.
- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision but certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida regarding the legality of the cell phone search.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permit a police officer to conduct a warrantless search of the data on an arrestee's cell phone after the phone has been seized and the arrestee secured?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. The search-incident-to-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement does not permit a police officer to conduct a warrantless search of the data on an arrestee's cell phone once the phone has been seized and the arrestee is secured. The court reasoned that modern cell phones are materially distinguishable from physical containers like the cigarette pack in United States v. Robinson due to the vast quantity and intensely private nature of the information they contain. The court applied the rule from Arizona v. Gant, which limited the search-incident-to-arrest exception to its two historical justifications: officer safety and the preservation of evidence. Once Officer Brown seized Smallwood's phone and secured him in a police car, Smallwood could no longer use the phone as a weapon or destroy evidence on it. Therefore, both justifications for the warrantless search were absent, and a warrant was required to search the phone's digital contents.
Dissenting - Canady, J.
Yes. A search of the contents of a cell phone found on the person of an arrestee is within the proper scope of a search incident to arrest. The dissent argued that United States v. Robinson grants unqualified authority to search the person of an arrestee to discover evidence. The majority's reliance on Arizona v. Gant is misplaced because Gant only defines the permissible area of search beyond the arrestee's person (e.g., a car), and does not alter the longstanding rule allowing a full search of items found on the arrestee's person. The dissent contended that the majority's distinction based on the 'character' of information on a phone is unworkable, as people carry many other items with sensitive personal information, and that the majority's new rule would transform and complicate the traditional understanding of the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine.
Analysis:
This decision significantly enhanced the privacy protections for digital data on cell phones under the Florida Constitution, treating them as distinct from ordinary physical containers. It established a clear rule requiring police to obtain a warrant before searching a seized cell phone, thereby limiting the scope of the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine in the digital age. The court's reasoning, which distinguished modern technology from older precedents and focused on the rationales underlying the warrant exception, foreshadowed the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in Riley v. California (2014), which would later establish a similar rule nationwide.
