High court hears arguments on whether 123-day delay to search cellphone was unreasonable

Summary

At oral argument in Umwell v. Michael A., the Commonwealth urged reversal of a suppression order, saying the cellphone seizure incident to arrest was lawful and the 123-day delay before obtaining a warrant was reasonable under the circumstances; the defense urged affirmance, saying the delay and the lack of urgency rendered the search unreasonable under White.

The Supreme Judicial Court heard competing arguments over whether a 123-day delay between a lawful seizure of a cellphone incident to arrest and the eventual magistrate-issued warrant rendered a subsequent search constitutionally unreasonable.

Kalyn Campbell, arguing for the Commonwealth, asked the court to "reverse the allowance of the defendant's motion to suppress," conceding that the phone "was properly seized as evidence, incident to arrest" but contesting the motion judge's separate holding that the police took an unreasonable time to obtain a warrant under the court's White precedent. Campbell told the court she accepted that a Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry applies after seizure, but she disputed that White imposes a categorical obligation to obtain a warrant within a rigid, short period.

The presentation…

High court hears arguments on whether 123-day delay to search cellphone was unreasonable

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading