United States v. Edward Bishop
910 F.3d 335 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant for a digital device like a cell phone satisfies the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement if it identifies the specific crimes being investigated, thereby limiting the scope of evidence to be seized, even if it authorizes a search of the entire device.
Facts:
- An illegal drug transaction involving Edward Bishop and a customer went wrong.
- During the failed transaction, the customer used pepper spray on Bishop.
- In response, Bishop shot the customer in the arm.
- Police subsequently obtained a warrant to search the cell phone that Bishop was carrying at the time of the incident.
- The search of the cell phone revealed incriminating evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- In the U.S. District Court, Edward Bishop was charged with discharging a firearm during a drug transaction.
- Bishop filed a motion to suppress the evidence found on his cell phone, arguing the search warrant lacked particularity and violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress.
- A jury subsequently convicted Bishop.
- Bishop, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
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 a search warrant authorizing a search of an entire cell phone for 'any evidence... of suspect identity, motive, scheme/plan' related to specified crimes violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
No, the search warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. A warrant is sufficiently particular if it cabins the search by stating the crime under investigation, even if it permits examination of all files on a device. The court reasoned that digital devices like cell phones are analogous to filing cabinets or houses, where criminals can hide evidence anywhere. Citing precedent like Andresen v. Maryland, the court explained that when investigators cannot know in advance where evidence is located, a warrant authorizing a search of the entire place for evidence of a specified crime is permissible. The particularity requirement is relative; a warrant need only be as specific as the circumstances and available knowledge allow, and the Constitution does not require more.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of traditional Fourth Amendment search principles to modern digital devices. It affirms that the 'filing cabinet' analogy from cases like Andresen extends to cell phones, granting law enforcement significant latitude to conduct comprehensive device searches. The ruling establishes that particularity is achieved by limiting the objective of the search (i.e., evidence of a specific crime) rather than the physical or digital location within the device. This approach will likely continue to guide courts in balancing privacy interests against the practical challenges of locating digital evidence, which can be easily hidden or mislabeled within a device's vast storage.
