CA8: Putting cell phones in airplane mode and then in a protective bag to prevent wiping was reasonable during inventory

There was probable cause to arrest defendant for bank fraud. Even assuming this bank fraud investigation was tainted because it relied on an alleged unadjudicated unconstitutional search in Los Angeles in a similar scheme, this was clearly attenuated. There was PC without it. At most, only his name was learned from Los Angeles. Officers knew that defendant was using a laptop from public access points to communicate with the bank he was attempting to defraud. When arrested, he had the bag on him. The bag was inventoried, and the cell phones were put into “airplane” mode and then in a protective “Faraday” bag so they could not be remotely wiped. This was reasonable. Also, the district court credited the officers on complying with the FBI’s inventory policy. United States v. Smith, 715 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2013):

“The reasonableness requirement is met when an inventory search is conducted according to standardized police procedures, which generally remove the inference that the police have used inventory searches as a purposeful and general means of discovering evidence of a crime.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). However, “inventory searches need not be conducted in a totally mechanical, all or nothing fashion.” United States v. Garreau, 658 F.3d 854, 858 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, “[e]ven when law enforcement fails to conduct a search according to standardized procedures, this does not mandate the suppression of the evidence discovered as a result of the search.” United States v. Rowland, 341 F.3d 774, 780 (8th Cir. 2003). “There must be something else; something to suggest the police raised ‘the inventory-search banner in an after-the-fact attempt to justify’ a simple investigatory search for incriminating evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Marshall, 986 F.2d 1171, 1175 (8th Cir. 1993)).

The district court did not clearly err when determining that the inventory search was not merely a pretext to search for evidence. The district court credited Detective Mize’s testimony that he complied with FBI policy when conducting the inventory search. Detective Mize stated he “ruffled” through documents, only attempting to look for valuable or dangerous items. We agree with the district court that it was reasonable for agents to place cell phones in “airplane mode” and to store the electronics in the protective bag. Further, minor deviations from procedure, such as failing to indicate which cell phone was found in the bag and which cell phones were found on Smith’s person, do not invalidate the inventory search. See Garreau, 658 F.3d at 858.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.