Seizure, Search of Mobile Phone Post High-Speed Chase Was Valid

The seizure of a mobile phone after a high-speed chase was justified as an inventory search under the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit ruled.

Nahach Garay crashed a rental car carrying firearms and illegal drugs into a ditch while fleeing San Bernadino County, Calif., deputy sheriffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said. The officers searched the car prior to having it towed, and state and federal warrants were issued to search the phone’s contents.

The court found it didn’t need to consider the federal government’s argument that Garay lacked standing to challenge the search of the phone before it could rule on the merits of Garay’s Fourth Amendment challenge.

The court quoted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Byrd v. United States, which found that Fourth Amendment standing isn’t a “jurisdictional question” that must “be addressed before addressing other aspects of the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim.”

Turning to the merits, the court found that the officers were compliant with standardized criteria for inventory searches and weren’t acting in bad faith. There was no reason to find that the officers were using the search as an excuse to rummage for evidence, the court said.

Further, Garay abandoned all reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the phone when he ran away from his damaged car, the court said.

The two affidavits within the warrant applications issued to search the phone were both found to have adequate probable cause.

Probable cause is shown when under the totality of the circumstances, it reveals a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, the court said.

According to the search warrants’ affiants, experience provides that people who possess firearms tend to take photos of the items and send text messages discussing possible criminal activity, the court said.

The warrants were found to be sufficient even apart from the affiants’ previous training and experience. Magistrate judges may reasonably infer where evidence possibly exists, the court said.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Susan P. Graber and Michael H. Watson.

Michael Tanaka represented Nahach Manuel Garay.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office represented the federal government.

The case is United States v. Garay, 9th Cir., No. 18-50054, 9/17/19.