WI: Contempt for failing to provide passcode for search of phone is reversed because it is now moot by SW

The owner of a cell phone was held in contempt for not providing a passcode to his phone so police could search it. They did not yet have a warrant. After defendant was held in contempt, the police obtained a warrant, so the owner’s specific argument is moot. In re Finding of Contempt in State v. Turrubiates, 2021 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1064 (Nov. 23, 2021):

Lamondo Turrubiates appeals from an order that: (1) compelled him to disclose his cell phone passcode to law enforcement; and (2) found him in contempt and ordered him imprisoned as a remedial sanction after he refused to comply with the order to compel. Turrubiates argues that the order to compel violated his Fourth Amendment rights because at the time he was ordered to provide his cell phone passcode, police had not yet obtained a warrant to search his phone. Turrubiates also argues that the contempt order must be reversed because the circuit court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures for holding him in contempt and imposing a remedial sanction.

We reject Turrubiates’ argument regarding the order to compel because the record shows that the State has now obtained a warrant to search his cell phone. As such, the factual basis for Turrubiates’ only claim that the order to compel violated his Fourth Amendment rights no longer exists. Turrubiates’ Fourth Amendment argument therefore fails, and we affirm that portion of the circuit court’s order compelling Turrubiates to provide his passcode to police. We agree with Turrubiates, however, that the court failed to follow the mandatory statutory procedures for holding him in contempt and imposing a remedial sanction. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the court’s order that held Turrubiates in contempt and ordered him imprisoned as a remedial sanction for his failure to provide the passcode.

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Privileges. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.