Digital Camera and cell phone search

Can the police search a digital camera or cell phone in the possession of the defendant without a valid warrant? The Court in Commonwealth v. Mauricio decided the answer to that question was “NO”. This decision expands upon the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. White and United States Supreme Court decision in California v. Riley when it decided that looking at the images contained on a digital camera should be considered investigatory and not part of an inventory search. Furthermore, the search would not meet any exception to the requirement of obtaining a warrant and should not considered a search incident to a lawful arrest.

In Mauricio, the defendant was originally arrested and charged with possession of narcotics and breaking and entering. Pursuant to that arrest, the police searched the backpack of the defendant to inventory the contents. During this search, the police discovered a ring and a digital camera with photographs of a firearm; both the ring and firearm were later determined to be stolen. As a result of this search the defendant was then charged with receiving stolen property over $250 and possession of a firearm without an id card.

The purpose of an inventory search is to safeguard the defendant’s property, protect the police against later claims of theft or lost property and keep weapons and contraband from the prison population. Thus, an inventory search is not intended to be investigatory or an opportunity for police to sift and read through materials which are not immediately apparent as contraband. In this case, the police admitted that the purpose of going through the images was to determine the rightful owner of the suspected stolen camera. The search of the digital camera was determined to be clearly investigatory without meeting any exception to the requirement of a warrant. The discovery of the ring was determined constitutional.

The court discussed the similarities between that of the cell phone analysis conducted in Riley under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the digital camera issue in this context under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The court discussed that similar to a cell phone, once the digital camera is secured, the risk of destruction of incriminating evidence is mitigated. In the context of the cell phone, the issue of remote wiping was presented and rejected by the court in Riley; the court in Mauricio considered that possibility even less of a risk in the context of a digital camera. The Mauricio court relied heavily on the extensive amount of personal information contained on any electronic device and ability to tell a vast story through those images to extend the ambit of Article 14 to include a bar to searching a digital camera pursuant to a search incident to arrest. The court upheld the seizure of the camera, but rejected the search of its contents as a search incident to arrest without obtaining a valid warrant.

If you have been arrested and your cell phone or digital camera was searched as a result of that arrest you may have an opportunity to suppress the evidence located during that search. Please call Criminal Attorney Kristen F. Bonavita at (978) 376 – 6746 for a free consultation.