{"id":43813,"date":"2020-05-19T10:06:49","date_gmt":"2020-05-19T15:06:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=43813"},"modified":"2020-05-19T10:06:49","modified_gmt":"2020-05-19T15:06:49","slug":"w-d-wash-powering-on-a-cell-phone-to-look-at-the-lock-screen-was-a-search-intruding-on-defendants-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=43813","title":{"rendered":"W.D.Wash.: Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Sam, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87143 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2020):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<!--more-->\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Here, the FBI physically intruded on Mr. Sam&#8217;s personal effect when the FBI powered on his phone to take a picture of the phone&#8217;s lock screen. See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 410 (2012) (plurality opinion) (holding Government searched a car by attaching a GPS device to the car); Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol agent searched a bag by squeezing it); Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324-25 (1987) (holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it so that the officer could view concealed serial numbers). The FBI therefore &#8220;searched&#8221; the phone within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Jardines, 569 U.S. at 5. And because the FBI conducted the search without a warrant, the search was unconstitutional. See Vernonia Sch. Dist., 515 U.S. at 653.<\/p><p>The Government argues that the FBI did not need a warrant because Mr. Sam had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone&#8217;s lock screen. But that expectation is irrelevant. The reasonable-expectations test first emerged in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 437 (1967). Although the test sometimes determines when the Government engages in a search, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that &#8220;a person&#8217;s &#8216;Fourth Amendment rights do not rise or fall with the Katz formulation'&#8221; because &#8220;the Katz reasonable-expectations test &#8216;has been added to, not substituted for,&#8217; the traditional property-based understanding of the Fourth Amendment.&#8221; Jardines, 569 U.S. at 10-11 (quoting United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 409 (2012)); see also Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2213. Thus, when the Government gains evidence by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area-as the FBI did here-it is &#8220;unnecessary to consider&#8221; whether the government also violated the defendant&#8217;s reasonable expectation of privacy. Jardines, 569 U.S. at 10-11. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Sam&#8217;s motion to suppress as to the evidence the FBI gathered during the second examination of Mr. Sam&#8217;s phone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Powering on a cell phone to look at the lock screen was a search intruding on defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Sam, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87143 (W.D. Wash. May 18, 2020):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,18,73],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy","category-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43813","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=43813"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43813\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43814,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43813\/revisions\/43814"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=43813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=43813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=43813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}