VIRGINIA

3(a) As to the handgun and cash, the court should deny Davis' motion to suppress.

The Fourth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Generally, a warrant is required for a government official to conduct a search, and the warrant must be based on an affidavit establishing probable cause must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate identifying the persons or places to be searched and the items to be seized. However, there are several exceptions to the warrant requirement, including exceptions for searches incident to arrest, items in plain view, the automobile exception, exigency, searches with consent, and qualified administrative searches.

Here, Officer Parker observed Davis' failure to stop at a stoplight and Davis' subsequent collision with another vehicle. This means that Officer Parker had probable cause to issue a citation and examine Davis' drivers' license and run it through the system as it wasn't a pretextual or unlawful stop of Davis. Parker discovered that Davis had an active warrant out for his arrest, and once Parker placed Davis under arrest a warrantless search of Davis' person incident to his arrest does not offend the Fourth Amendment. In a lawful search incident to arrest, an officer may search a person and anything in the person's immediate vicinity and control. In the search incident to arrest, Parker found and seized a handgun and $5,000 in cash. Both of these items were lawfully found and seized as potential evidence of a crime, so the court should deny Davis' motion to suppress both the handgun and the cash.

3(b) As to the opaque bag, the court should deny Davis' motion to suppress.

The general search warrant requirement and exception rules explained in part (a) apply. In conducting a lawful search incident to arrest, officers may search the person arrested including pockets and clothing and anything in their immediate vicinity under the arrestee's control. The purpose of a search incident to arrest is both to ensure that the arestee does not have weapons or anything posing a danger to the officer or to search for evidence of the crime. This includes authority to open closed containers that the arrestee may otherwise be able to access in the course of the arrest.

Here, it is not clear for what crime Davis had an active warrant providing for his arrest, but Parker was entitled to search Davis for evidence of that crime. On top of that, Parker was authorized to search Davis' person for weapons or dangers. Parker found an opaque bag, which he may have been able to feel the contents pursuant to the plain feel exception, but if he could not feel the contents he had to open the bag to discover the contents. Given that Parker had just seized a handgun off of Davis' person in the search incident to arrest, Parker was authorized to open an unlocked opaque bag found on Davis' person to ensure there were no hidden dangers. Upon opening the bag, Parker immediately believed from training and experience that the contents of the opaque bagwere fentanyl. The opaque bag and contents were searched as a lawful search incident to arrest, so the court should deny Davis' motion to suppress.

3(c) As to the cell phone and digital contents, the court should deny the motion to suppress the cell phone itself but grant the motion to suppress as to digital contents.

The general search warrant requirement and exception rules explained in part (a) continue to apply. The cell phone was discovered as part of a lawful search incident to arrest so it may be seized. As to the contents of the cell phone, there were text messages reasonably related to possession and distribution of fentanyl as at least one message was consistent with the written note evincing a meeting at 8 pm on the corner of 5th and B St and an image of Davis snorting white powder from the surface of a glass table.

Cell phone contents are generally given heightened protections given the nature of the intrusion into someone's personal affairs due to the contents of a cell phone. It is not clear how Parker was able to access the contents of the phone at the scene. If Davis consented to the search of his phone, the contents would be admissible and the court should deny the motion to suppress the digital contents. It is not clear if Davis consented and provided his access code or otherwise authorized Parker's access. On the other hand, if Parker held the phone to Davis' face or used another biometric means to access the phone without Davis' consent, that would not be a consensual search of the phone contents. The proper course would have been for Parker to seek a search warrant to search the contents of the phone. A search of the phone may be excusable under the warrant exception for evidence that would inevitably have been discovered. If Davis did not consent to Parker's search of the cell phone at the scene, the court should grant Davis' motion to suppress evidence of the contents of the phone, such as the incriminating text messages and photograph of him snorting white powder, but deny the motion to suppress as it relates to the phone itself.

3(d) As to the digital scales, the court should deny the motion to suppress.

The general search warrant requirement and exception rules explained in part (a) continue to apply. One specific form of administrative searches that are an exception to the warrant requirement is inventory searches when vehicles are impounded. An inventory search conducted pursuant to standardized criteria is permitted to establish chain of custody and prevent potential claims of theft by the police.

Here, Parker had Davis' car towed to the impound yard and complied with standard police department procedures in searching Davis' car later that same day to make an inventory of its contents. During the standard inventory search, Parker found digital scales covered with white powder and seized them as evidence as they appear to be evidence of a crime. The inventory search was lawful in this case, thus the court should deny DAvis' motion to suppress the evidence of the digital scales.

(a) The Court should overrule the Motion to Suppress the handgun and cash as they were found incident to a valid arrest.
Under the Constitution, the law protects citizens from an unlawful search and seizure. It also protects citizens from their person being searched unles subject to a valid arrest or when an officer has probable cause to search. When an officer makes a valid arrest pursuant to an active warrant, an officer may conduct a search incident to arrest. Unlike Terry Stop and Frisks, which allow officers to do a pat down of a suspect and only seize items that are easily recognizable as a weapon or contraband for the safety of the officers, the search incident to arrest is more board. The officer may search the entire person being arrested and remove any items found in their pockets or on their person and those items may be used as evidence.
Here, the Officer Parker witnessed a car accident after Davis failed to stop at a redlight. During his investigation into the accident, Parker seized Davis’ driver’s license to issue him a ticket for failing to obey the law and stop at the light. During the investigation, Parker ran Davis’ information into the law enforcement database and discovered that Davis had an active warrant. Parker then lawfully placed Davis under arrest and searched his person, incident to arrest, for weapons and contraband before booking Davis in jail. Parker then discovered the gun under Davis’ coat and $5,000 in bills in Davis’ front pocket. These were lawfully seized. Therefore, the Court should deny the Motion to Suppress the gun and cash as they were evidence lawfully discovered incident to Davis’s lawful arrest.

(b)The Court should overrule the Motion to Suppress the opaque bag as the evidence discovered was found during a search incident to a valid arrest.
As stated in section (a), items discovered on an arrestee’s person incident to arrest may be used as evidence against them. When it comes to containers or bags found on the arrested person, the officers can open these containers to confirm that there are no weapons or contraband inside. This is lawful under a search incident to an arrest and does not require any additional articulable reasonable suspicion to open the container.
Here, Parker found an opaque bag inside Davis’ coat pocket. The facts do not state how large the bag was, however, Parker was unlikely to be able to confirm what the contents were that were inside the bag just by looking on the outside. Parker opened the bag and found four sealed clear baggies with a white substance and a note stating “8pm, corner 5th & B St.” Based on Parker’s experience, he determined that the baggies may contain a schedule I/II substance and seized it as evidence to be tested. Later, the analysis came back confirmed that the substance was fentanyl. Therefore, the Court should deny the Motion to Suppress the opaque baggie as it was lawfully seized and searched incident to a valid arrest.

(c) The Court should sustain the Motion to Suppress the digital contents of the cell phone, though not the cell phone itself, as it was an unlawful warrantless search.
The Supreme Court has ruled that under the Constitution, U.S. citizens have protection in places and things where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For law enforecement to gain access to that place or thing, they must have a warrant, exigent circumstances or an exception to search. SCOTUS rulings have extended this protection to a person’s digital content on a cell phone or computer as the digital age has expanded. A law enforcement officer may not search the digital contents of the phone or computer absent a warrrant or exigent circumstances. This protection is limited in that it extends to accessing the digital content, but not the external display of the device, such as visible pictures or text messages. Evidence discovered during a search without a valid warrant constitutes “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Here, Parker seized the cell phone from Davis’ front pocket. Parker then began to search through the digital contents of the cell phone without a warrant, not merely just the front display on the device itself. On the cell phone, Parker discovered text messages about meetups and an image of Davis’ snorting a powdery substance. Though this is highly probative evidence, because it was seized subject to a warrantless search, this evidence is fruit of a poisonous tree, though the physcial presence of the cell phone itself was seized incident to an arrest. Therefore, the Court should sustain the Motion to Suppress the digital contents of the cell phone as fruit of the poisonous tree, though not the physcial cell phone itself.

(d)The Court should overrule the Motion to Suppress the digital scales as they were discovered during an inventory search.
Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that, though there is a slight reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle, there are two exceptions that allow law enfrocement officers to search a vehicle without a warrant. Those exceptions are the automobile exception and the inventory search. Under the inventory search, which is at issue here, if a vehicle is impounded by the police department either after a valid arrest, if the vehicle was disabled, etc, officers may conduct an inventory search of the vehicle. The search may occur immediately before impounding the vehicle or after the vehicle reaches the impoud lot. The law enforcement department must have policies and procedures to conduct said inventory search and the officer must followed those standard operating procedures(“SOP”). Typically, the search is to inventory any personal property belonging to the driver or owner of the vehicle to prevent any claims of theft.
Here, Davis got into an accident and his vehicle was disabled by the collison and could not be driven. Officer Parker impounded his vehicle pursuant to the Arlington Police Department procedures. Parker, waiting until the vehicle was in the impound let, went through the vehicle to catelog the property inside the vehicle. Following the SOPs, Parker discovered the scales in the back seat of the vehicle and they were covered with a white powder. Based on his experience and on the accumulative evidence that Parker had collected so far, Parker seized the scales as evidence. Therefore, the Court should overrule the Motion to Suppress the scale as they were seized as evidence pursuant to a valid inventory search of Davis’ vehicle.