In a 5-2 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that while police can answer a suspect’s phone, a warrant is needed to search their photo gallery.
“We did a good job in deciding this case and examining it from a legally sound standpoint,” Justice Pat Roggensack said.
The ruling stems from the case of Jermichael Carroll of Milwaukee. Carroll sped away from a house that was being observed because of a suspected armed robbery and was stopped by the police.
While exiting the vehicle, police ordered Carroll to drop an unidentified object which he held in his hand.
After picking up the object, a cell phone which had flipped open on the ground, police saw the defendant’s wallpaper was an image of himself smoking a blunt cigar — often hollowed out and used to smoke marijuana.
Next, officers looked through Carroll’s saved pictures, which showed the defendant with large sums of cash, firearms and significant amounts of illegal narcotics.
Officers then called to request a warrant to further search the phone.
The phone rang several times after Carroll was taken into custody and when a police officer answered the phone pretending to be Carroll, the caller allegedly asked to purchase cocaine.
Further examination of the phone after the warrant was granted provided more incriminating evidence.
Carroll was charged for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The court ruled the viewing of the wallpaper was legal and police did not need a warrant because the photograph was in plain view. The court’s decision also said the officer answering the phone as Carroll was legal because the evidence would have been lost had police not acted.
The initial viewing of the phone’s photo gallery without a warrant was ruled to be illegal. The later issued warrant, however, was ruled to have probable cause and be admissible without the images in the photo gallery, because of the phone’s background and the incriminating phone call that was received.
This case proved controversial among the court, with differing opinions on what constituted a reasonable search and seizure.
“There is a lot of room for disagreement on this case and either side could find a good factual base for their argument,” said Cecelia Klingele, assistant law professor at the University of Wisconsin.
According to Klingele, the state of Ohio saw a similar case but, because of differing circumstances, ruled information on the phone was not admissible.
The dissenting opinions for this case came from Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice David Posner. In Posner’s dissent he wrote he does not believe the wallpaper gave enough evidence to justify a warrant for further information from the defendant’s phone.
In Klingele’s view, though this case may not have a huge effect on criminal proceedings, it is
just one of many cases where the laws must adapt for a new era.
“What’s most interesting about this case is not that this case will have a huge impact on many cases to come, but how old legal precedents are developing along with the technology we use,” Klingele said.
