State v. Wallace

442 P.3d 175

STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant,

v.Brittney Jo WALLACE, Appellee.

Case No. S-2018-229

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

FILED MAY 23, 2019

APPEARANCES AT TRIAL, KALI STRAIN, ZACHARY COBELL, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, 200 S. LYNN RIGGS BLVD., CLAREMORE, OK 74017, COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

MARK ANTINORO, CHRISTOPHER GARNER, ANTINORO LAW FIRM, PLC, 25 NORTH VANN ST., P.O. BOX 932, PRYOR, OK 74362, AND, LARRY STEIDLEY, STEIDLEY LAW FIRM, 1503 N. LYNN RIGGS BLVD., SUITE C, P.O. BOX 9, CLAREMORE, OK 74019, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

APPEARANCES ON APPEAL, MATTHEW J. BALLARD, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ANTHONY J. EVANS, ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 200 S. LYNN RIGGS BLVD., CLAREMORE, OK 74017, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

MARK ANTINORO, CHRISTOPHER GARNER, ANTINORO LAW FIRM, PLC, 25 NORTH VANN ST., P.O. BOX 932, PRYOR, OK 74362, AND, LARRY STEIDLEY, STEIDLEY LAW FIRM, 1503 N. LYNN RIGGS BLVD., SUITE C, P.O. BOX 9, CLAREMORE, OK 74019, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

SUMMARY OPINION

LUMPKIN, JUDGE:

¶ 1 Appellee, Brittney Jo Wallace, was charged by Information in the District Court of Rogers County, Case No. CF-2016-461, with Enabling Child Abuse (Counts 1 & 2) ( 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(B) ) and Child Neglect (Count 3) ( 21 O.S.2011, § 843.5(C) ). On April 16, 2017, the Honorable H.M. Wyatt, III, Associate District Judge, held a pretrial hearing concerning Appellee's motion to suppress and took the matter under advisement. In a written order issued on February 22, 2018, Judge Wyatt sustained Appellee's motion and suppressed any and all evidence the State obtained in the search and seizure of Appellee's cell phone.¹ The State appeals to this Court pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053(6).

¶ 2 Section 1053 provides, in relevant part, that the State may appeal, "[u]pon a pretrial order, decision or judgment suppressing or excluding evidence in cases alleging violation of any provisions of Section 13.1 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes." Since both Enabling Child Abuse and Child Neglect are offenses enumerated under Section 13.1, we find that the State's appeal is proper.

¶ 3 The State raises the following propositions of error in support of this appeal:

I. The seizure of Appellee's cellular phone was supported by probable cause and thus a reasonable seizure.

II. The District Court's findings are in error and not supported by the law or the facts in the record.

¶ 4 This Court reviews appeals pursuant to 22 O.S.2011, § 1053 to determine if the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Gilchrist , 2017 OK CR 25, ¶ 12, 422 P.3d 182, 185 ; State v. Hooley , 2012 OK CR 3, ¶ 4, 269 P.3d 949, 950 ; State v. Love , 1998 OK CR 32, ¶ 2, 960 P.2d 368, 369. This is the same standard applied when we review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. Bramlett v. State , 2018 OK CR 19, ¶ 10, 422 P.3d 788, 793 ; State v. Keefe , 2017 OK CR 3, ¶ 7, 394 P.3d 1272, 1275. An abuse of discretion is any unreasonable or arbitrary action taken without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter at issue or a clearly erroneous conclusion and judgment, one that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts presented. Neloms v. State , 2012 OK CR 7, ¶ 35, 274 P.3d 161, 170.

¶ 5 In Proposition One, the State challenges the District Court's suppression of the evidence recovered from Appellee's cellular phone. The State argues that the District Court erred when it determined that the initial seizure and accessing of Appellee's phone on May 13, 2016 was contrary to her constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.

¶ 6 The United States Supreme Court has long held that the " ‘touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.’ " Ohio v. Robinette , 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S. Ct. 417, 421, 136 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1996) (quoting Florida v. Jimeno , 500 U.S. 248, 250, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 1803, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297 (1991) ). "Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." Id.

¶ 7 Reviewing the record, we find that the District Court abused its discretion when it suppressed the evidence recovered from Appellee's cell phone. The District Court's determination that the initial seizure and accessing of the phone was illegal is clearly erroneous and without proper consideration of the facts and law pertaining to the matter. Warrantless seizures of evidence are presumed unreasonable. State v. Sittingdown , 2010 OK CR 22, ¶ 9, 240 P.3d 714, 716. Nonetheless, "society's interest in the discovery and protection of incriminating evidence from removal or destruction can supersede, at least for a limited period, a person's possessory interest in property, provided that there is probable cause to believe that that property is associated with criminal activity."

Segura v. United States , 468 U.S. 796, 808, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 3387, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984). Therefore, a warrantless seizure is permissible when law enforcement has probable cause to believe the item seized is evidence of a crime, and exigent circumstances sufficient to justify immediate seizure are present. Harjo v. State , 1994 OK CR 47, 882 P.2d 1067, 1073 (citing Cupp v. Murphy , 412 U.S. 291, 93 S. Ct. 2000, 36 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1973) ).

¶ 8 In Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that absent exigent circumstances or some other exception, police must get a warrant before searching the data on a cell phone. State v. Thomas , 2014 OK CR 12, ¶ 5, 334 P.3d 941, 944. However, the Supreme Court noted that law enforcement can seize and secure a phone to prevent the destruction of evidence while seeking a warrant. Id. , 2014 OK CR 12, ¶ 7, 334 P.3d at 944 (citing Riley , 573 U.S. at 390-91, 134 S. Ct. 2473 ).

¶ 9 The investigating detective had probable cause to believe that Appellee's cell phone contained evidence of the crime of child abuse and child neglect. The medical professionals at St. Francis Hospital informed the detective that two of Appellee's sons had suffered physical abuse and neglect. Both of the boys had significant injuries which were wholly inconsistent with the typical injuries for their respective ages and inconsistent with the history that Appellee and her boyfriend had given. Appellee advised the detective that she had documented every injury that the boys incurred by informing her mother, taking photographs of the injuries on her phone, and sending the pictures to her mother. Appellee's mother corroborated this fact. The detective knew that the photographs would have date and time data stamped on them. He also believed that the phone would contain communications about the boys' injuries based upon the statements of both Appellee and her boyfriend about the argument they had following the boys' earlier visit to a health clinic. Since the phone was located in Tulsa County and the Rogers County judges only permitted written applications for warrants, the detective did not attempt to get a search warrant from the Rogers County Associate District Judge when he contacted the judge by phone and secured the authority to place the boys in protective custody. Instead, the detective seized Appellee's phone to prevent her from deleting any incriminating evidence on the device.

¶ 10 Similarly, we find that the detective's act of accessing the phone to forward Appellee's calls and activating the device's airplane mode function was reasonable. Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that when seizing a cell phone, law enforcement may act to prevent both the remote wiping of data and the encryption of data. Riley , 573 U.S. at 390-91, 134 S. Ct. at 2487 ; Thomas , 2014 OK CR 12, ¶ 7, 334 P.3d at 944. In order to prevent the remote wiping of data from the cell phone, officers are permitted to turn the phone off, remove its battery, or place it in a "Faraday bag," i.e. , an enclosure that isolates the phone from radio waves. Riley , 573 U.S. at 391, 134 S. Ct. at 2487. "Or, if officers happen to seize a phone in an unlocked state, they may be able to disable a phone's automatic-lock feature in order to prevent the phone from locking and encrypting data." Id. To the extent that these actions do not sufficiently address law enforcement's specific concerns about the potential loss of evidence in a particular case, they may rely upon exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately. Id.

¶ 11 The detective testified that he accessed the phone to avoid the loss of any evidence from the device. He related that Appellee indicated in the negative when he asked if the phone had a passcode. Based upon Appellee's expressed desire to receive incoming phone calls, Appellee and the detective agreed to forward Appellee's phone calls to another number. The detective asked for Appellee's assistance in accessing the settings on the phone to accomplish this feat. He then placed the phone on airplane mode knowing that this action would disconnect the phone from the cellular network. The detective explained that he believed this would suffice to satisfy the dictates of Riley in light of the fact that his department did not have Faraday bags. He explicitly testified that he did not go through Appellee's personal information on the phone or get any evidence from his act of accessing the settings on the phone.

¶ 12 Citing to the detective's stray comments on the audio recording of his investigation at the hospital, Appellee argues that the detective admitted that he did not have probable cause to seize the phone. As outlined above, it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that the officer had probable cause to seize the phone. The detective's stray comments over the course of three plus hours of investigation do not overcome the objective reasonableness of his actions.

¶ 13 The detective's initial seizure and accessing of Appellee's phone was reasonable under Thomas and Riley . Therefore, finding the District Court abused its discretion when it ordered the...