GA: SW for air bag module and vehicle black box issued with PC and was particular

This search warrant for the Airbag Control Modules and the vehicle’s black box was issued on probable cause and was particular in a vehicular homicide case. Hutchins v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 134 (Mar. 13, 2025):

The search warrant authorized “[a] download of any Airbag Control Modules (ACM), Electronic [C]ontrol Modules (ECM) and any electronic devices located in [Hutchins’] vehicle” and “[a] vehicle inspection to show any causation factors in this crash.” Pursuant to that warrant, law enforcement downloaded data from the Lexus’s airbag control module. This data included information such as the vehicle’s speed in the seconds leading up to the crash and whether the brake switch was activated. At trial, a witness relied on the report to testify that the Lexus was traveling 78 miles per hour during the entire four seconds leading up to the crash and that the brake was never activated during that time.

Hutchins asserts that the warrant was overbroad because the affidavit failed to set forth probable cause to search “any electronic devices located in the vehicle.” Even assuming that this provision was overbroad, however, there is no indication that any electronics other than the ACM were searched. Thus, Hutchins has failed to establish harm, and this claim fails. See Pugh v. State, 318 Ga. 706, 719 (2) (e) (899 SE2d 653) (2024) (finding that defendant could not show harm where no evidence admitted against him at trial was seized solely pursuant to the allegedly overbroad portions of a search warrant).

Hutchins also claims that the warrant was overbroad because it failed to provide any guidance for, or limitations on, the search. In support of this argument, Hutchins relies on State v. Wilson, 315 Ga. 613 (884 SE2d 298) (2023), in which the Supreme Court held that a warrant authorizing the seizure of “any and all stored electronic information” on the defendant’s cell phones was not sufficiently particularized. See id. at 615-616. However, Wilson involved cell phones, which are “minicomputers” that “differ in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense from other objects that might be kept on an arrestee’s person.” Riley v. California, 573 U. S. 373, 393 (III) (B) (1) (134 SCt 2473, 189 LE2d 430) (2014). In this case, there is no indication that ACMs or ECMs contain the same breadth of information as cell phones, and Hutchins cites no precedent holding that a search warrant requesting data from a vehicle’s ACM or ECM violates the Fourth Amendment under these circumstances. Given the lack of binding appellate precedent on this issue, Hutchins has not carried his burden of showing that his trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress the search warrant was patently unreasonable, and this claim fails. See Hurston v. State, 310 Ga. 818, 829-830 (3) (b) (854 SE2d 745) (2021).