Can Police Seize Your Cell Phone Without a Warrant? State v. LaFlex
Short answer: yes. Longer answer: it depends on the circumstances of the situation and whether an exception to the warrant requirement applies. In State v. LaFlex, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined exigent circumstances justified police seizing the defendant’s cell phone without first obtaining a warrant.
Nearly every person in the United States own a cell phone. It is so common that someday in the near future humans may mutate and emerge from the womb with a smart device embedded in their body. People simply cannot function on a daily basis without one. Which is why it is so detrimental when you lose it or someone takes it away. Especially the police. Which raises the important question: Can the police seize your cell phone without a warrant?
Can Police Take Your Phone After a Car Accident in Minnesota?
One of the most common situations leading to law enforcement taking a person’s phone is after a traffic accident occurs. Even without any evidence that the person was driving distracted, it happens frequently. They want to see for themselves if the driver was on their phone illegally while driving. Which may include a more intrusive and lengthy forensic examination by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Are cops getting a warrant to search the phone? Very often, yes. Are they taking the phone first without a warrant? Often, yes. Do they have an exception to the warrant requirement to do so? Often an issue litigated in court.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. Courts will not care if the cops did not get a warrant, if they can establish an exception to the warrant requirement was present. The most common exceptions are: consent (all they need is for you to say “yes”, exigent circumstances (fancy word for “emergency”), search incident to arrest (after cuffing you, they gonna search you and where you can reach. But, seizing a cell phone does not authorize the police to search the digital contents of a cell phone without a warrant), plain view doctrine (they can see all your illegal things already), automobile exception (cops have probable cause to believe there is something illegal in your car), and a Terry stop (if your name is Terry, the cops can stop you at any time and search you. Jk. It is a limited search for weapons, if a cop thinks you committed a crime and thinks you may be armed and dangerous).
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court took up the issue of cops seizing cell phones without a warrant in State v. LaFlex. In that case, the court upheld a warrantless seizure of LaFlex’s cell phone claiming the exigent circumstances exception. In this case, as it often does, the officer was worried that LaFlex would destroy evidence before they were able to obtain a search warrant. The officer believed they had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime would be found on the cell phone, so they seized it. The case involved first degree premeditated murder. The defense filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence found on the cell phone. The district court denied the motion, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Why Did the Minnesota Supreme Court Allow the Seizure in State v. LaFlex?
In the decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court relied on its precedent in State v. Horst, which determined the seizure of a cell phone for one day until officers could obtain a search warrant was valid). Even though LaFlex twice consented to the search of his phone before the officer seized it, the officer nevertheless relied on the need to prevent destruction of evidence. The court reasoned it was objectively reasonable for officers to conclude delaying the seizure of the cell phone to obtain a warrant risked LaFlex destroying evidence. After all, LaFlex admitted to throwing the victim’s cell phone into a garbage can. The court also explained the nature and duration of the seizure was reasonable. After seizing the phone, the officers promptly applied for a warrant to search it. LaFlex’s defense attorney argued that no exigency existed because the officers had time to obtain a warrant between their first contact and the moment of seizing the cell phone. The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed.
Although the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld taking LaFlex’s phone without a warrant, the twist in the case is he got a new trial because the district court screwed up in a jury instruction. The district court instructed the jury it does not have to consider a lesser-included offense, if it found LaFlex guilty of first degree premeditated murder. The supremes decided it was plain error for the district court to do so. Hence, new trial.
Can Police Search Your Phone Without a Warrant?
Importantly, there is a difference between seizing a cell phone and searching it. Taking possession of someone’s phone does not automatically give law enforcement the right to rummage through text messages, photographs, location data, and everything else stored on it. In LaFlex, officers seized the phone first and obtained a search warrant before examining its contents. Just because cops think your cell phone contains evidence of a crime does not mean they can automatically take it. Without a warrant or valid exception to the warrant requirement, seizing your phone may violate your Fourth Amendment rights.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney representing clients in Minnesota and Wisconsin, with offices in Woodbury and Minneapolis. He is also licensed to practice in federal court, has been recognized by Super Lawyers for the past five years, serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.