MD: Oral motion to suppress cell phone was waived: neither timely nor specific

Defendant’s oral motion to suppress the contents of his cell phone the morning of trial was neither timely nor specific as to what was to be suppressed, so it’s treated as waived. Sinclair v. State, 2015 Md. LEXIS 496 (July 27, 2015):

Petitioner Ronald Sinclair was convicted of various charges related to a carjacking. Part of the evidence against him was derived from a flip cell phone that was seized from him incident to his arrest — screen images that matched the custom wheel rims of the stolen car. He sought to exclude that evidence from his trial in an oral motion made by his attorney on the morning of trial. The Circuit Court allowed the use of that evidence and the Court of Special Appeals affirmed that decision. Before us, Mr. Sinclair relies on the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Riley v. California, __ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) to argue that the arresting officer’s review of photos on the cell phone without a warrant was an unconstitutional search and that the evidence derived from the cell phone should have been suppressed.

We hold that, in failing to make his motion to suppress the evidence derived from his cell phone within the time period and with the specificity required by the Maryland Rules, Mr. Sinclair waived that motion. Moreover, even had the motion been made in a timely manner, the primary evidence obtained from the cell phone — the screen saver image that was in plain view upon physical inspection of the phone — was admissible under the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley.