United States v. Ezra Griffith
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15636, 867 F.3d 1265, 2017 WL 3568288 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The generalized probability that a criminal suspect owns a cell phone is insufficient, without particularized evidence, to establish probable cause for a warrant to search the suspect's home for that device, especially when the crime under investigation is not recent.
Facts:
- Police investigated a homicide related to a gang conflict and observed a getaway car on surveillance footage.
- Two months after the homicide, police located a vehicle matching the getaway car, which was registered to Ezra Griffith's mother.
- Eight months later, Griffith's mother confirmed to police that her son, Ezra Griffith, had been the vehicle's principal user.
- At the time of this confirmation, Griffith was incarcerated on unrelated charges.
- From jail, Griffith made recorded phone calls to discuss the police investigation into his car with an associate, Dwayne Hilton, and a fellow gang member, Carl Oliphant.
- After serving approximately 10 months, Griffith was released from incarceration.
- Upon his release, Griffith moved into an apartment owned by his girlfriend, Sheree Lewis.
- More than a year after the homicide and four months after Griffith's release, police sought a warrant to search Lewis's apartment for cell phones and other electronic devices.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Ezra Griffith in U.S. District Court with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- Griffith filed a motion to suppress the firearm, arguing that the warrant used to search his residence was invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
- The government opposed the motion, arguing the warrant was valid, the good-faith exception applied, and Griffith had abandoned the firearm.
- The district court (trial court) denied the suppression motion, finding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Griffith.
- Griffith (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
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 violate the Fourth Amendment when it authorizes the seizure of all electronic devices in a suspect's home, based on a police officer's general experience that gang members use cell phones to communicate, but lacks specific evidence that the suspect owns a cell phone or that a phone containing evidence of a year-old crime would be found in the home?
Opinions:
Majority - Srinivasan, Circuit Judge
Yes. A search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment when it lacks a specific, particularized basis to believe the suspect owns a cell phone and that it will be found in the home containing timely evidence of the crime. The affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it relied on a series of unsupported inferences: that Griffith owned a cell phone, that it would be located in his home, and that it would contain evidence of a crime committed over a year prior. The court reasoned that the general ubiquity of cell phones cannot substitute for particularized evidence needed to justify the search of a home, which lies at the core of the Fourth Amendment's protections. Furthermore, the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad because it authorized the seizure of all electronic devices in the residence, regardless of ownership, far exceeding any justification provided in the affidavit. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply because the affidavit was so 'bare bones' and lacking in indicia of probable cause that official belief in its existence was 'entirely unreasonable.' Finally, the firearm was properly suppressed because Griffith discarded it in direct response to the police's announcement of the invalid warrant, meaning it was not voluntarily abandoned but was instead the fruit of the illegal police action.
Dissenting - Brown, Circuit Judge
No. The warrant was supported by probable cause, and even if it were not, the evidence should be admissible under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The affidavit was not 'bare bones,' as it detailed Griffith's connection to the homicide, his gang affiliation, and his jailhouse calls discussing the investigation. It is common sense to infer that a gang member would own a cell phone and use it to communicate about criminal activity. The affiant was a veteran detective whose experience should be given deference. Even if the warrant was overbroad, precedent allows for the application of the good-faith exception in such cases. The majority's decision improperly punishes diligent police officers who scrupulously followed the law by obtaining a warrant from a magistrate, thereby failing to serve the exclusionary rule's purpose of deterring police misconduct and resulting in a guilty defendant going free.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the Fourth Amendment's protection of the home against searches for electronic devices. It establishes that law enforcement cannot rely on generalized assumptions about cell phone ownership to obtain a search warrant for a residence, requiring instead particularized evidence linking the suspect, the device, and the crime. This precedent limits the government's ability to engage in exploratory searches of homes for digital evidence and raises the bar for what constitutes probable cause in the digital age. Future warrant applications for cell phones and other devices will likely need to include more specific facts, such as eyewitness accounts of the suspect using a phone or phone records linking the suspect to a device.
