E.D.Wis.: Putting iPhone in airplane mode was reasonable, even if it was a search

Even if the officer putting defendant’s cell phone in airplane mode to protect the contents was a search, it was reasonable. Also, it yielded no evidence to suppress. United States v. Schroeder, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 256464 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2025):

The government is correct that Steber merely unlocked the phone and placed it in airplane mode before he later obtained Schroeder’s written consent to search the phone. However, even these actions-a police officer unlocking a phone and placing it into airplane mode, i.e., turning off its network connectivity-likely constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Bell, No. 15-10029, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52651, at *6 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2016) (holding that officer opening flip phone and turning it off constituted a search); cf. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324-25 (1987) (holding that moving a stereo component to view a serial number constituted a search).

Thus, perhaps the government’s contention that Steber’s actions did not constitute a search reflects more the fact that those actions did not, directly or indirectly, lead to anything of evidentiary value. Steber merely disconnected it from any networks to preserve evidence on the phone. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 390-91 (2014) (discussing how mobile phones may need to be disconnected from networks to prevent them from being remotely erased). Or perhaps the government is arguing that it was not an unlawful search because it was a reasonable means to preserve evidence until investigators could obtain a warrant See id. at 391 (discussing Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001)).

In any event, for the court’s purposes Schroeder’s motion fails because Steber’s preliminary search of the phone (by unlocking it and putting it in airplane mode) yielded no evidence. And even if Steber’s actions could be characterized as a poisonous tree, it bore no fruit; there is simply nothing to suppress.

Alternatively, the court finds that Steber’s actions were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to preserve the contents of the phone pending a search warrant or consent to search it.