# United States v. Wicks

> Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces · February 20, 2014 · 73 M.J. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798858

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Samuel A. WICKS, Technical Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
- **Decided:** February 20, 2014
- **Citations:** 73 M.J. 93; 2014 CAAF LEXIS 173; 2014 WL 683633
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stucky
- **Judges:** Baker, Erdmann, Ryan, Cox, Stucky
- **Cited by:** 90 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798858

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 infor…
- 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…
- stating that it is “well-established” that “search and seizure rules do not apply to searches conducted by private parties”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798858. Public record. Not legal advice.