explaining that a witness initially attempted to turn over only the SIM card of a suspect's cell phone, but "the SIM card did not contain any [useful] information," so the witness eventually turned over the suspect's entire cell phone, which did contain the incriminating information for which law enforcement was looking
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a witness initially attempted to turn over only the SIM card of a suspect's cell phone, but "the SIM card did not contain any [useful] information," so the witness eventually turned over the suspect's entire cell phone, which did contain the incriminating information for which law enforcement was looking
- holding “the inevitable discovery doctrine cannot rescue evidence obtained via an unlawful search simply because probable cause existed to obtain a warrant when the government presents no evidence that the police would have obtained a warrant” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)
- considering both lack of evidence that a search authorization was pursued and the investigating officer’s testimony that it was not her inten- tion or practice to seek search authorization under the cir- cumstances in determining that the exclusionary rule should apply
- stating that it is “well-established” that “search and seizure rules do not apply to searches conducted by private parties”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STUCKY, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur that the Government’s successive searches, forensic and otherwise, of Appellant’s iPhone clearly exceeded the scope of the original private search, and that the results of those searches must be excluded from evidence. While the full extent of the private search is not clear, the military judge found that it revealed text messages from “D. Wade” and “Benoit.” United States v. Wicks, 73 M.J. 93, 96 (C.A.A.F.2014). I believe that the Government has carried its burden of showing that these messages were within the scope of the initial private search, and I would hold that they are therefore admissible at trial.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.