In re J.F.S.
| Docket Number | 21-FS-0478 |
| Decision Date | 31 August 2023 |
| Parties | In re J.F.S., Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
1
In re J.F.S., Appellant.
No. 21-FS-0478
Court of Appeals of The District of Columbia
August 31, 2023
Argued April 12, 2023
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2020-DEL-000282) (Hon. Andrea Hertzfeld, Trial Judge)
Joel R. Davidson for appellant.
Lucy E. Pittman, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Karl A. Racine, Attorney General at the time, Caroline S. Van Zile, Solicitor General, Ashwin P. Phatak, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and Carl J. Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General were on the brief, for appellee.
Before DEAHL, HOWARD, and SHANKER, Associate Judges.
DEAHL, ASSOCIATE JUDGE
J.F.S., a juvenile, was found to have aided and abetted first-degree murder and related offenses. Some of the more incriminating evidence against him was recovered from a police search of his cell phone. J.F.S. now argues that both the initial seizure and the subsequent search of his cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights, so the trial court should have suppressed the evidence recovered from his phone and certain fruits of that search, described below.
The government counters that J.F.S.'s mother consented to the seizure of the phone, and that the subsequent search was authorized by a valid search warrant. Two issues lie at the heart of this appeal: (1) whether J.F.S.'s mother had the actual or apparent authority to consent to the seizure of his phone, and (2) whether the warrant was sufficiently particularized to authorize the search of his phone.
We have never before addressed the scope of a parent's authority to consent to the seizure of their child's phone. Like most Fourth Amendment questions, this is a fact-specific inquiry. On these facts-where J.F.S. was a minor who was living at home, his mother bought the phone, the phone was in her name, and she had asserted her authority to confiscate it in the officers' presence-J.F.S.'s mother had the apparent authority to consent to the seizure of J.F.S.'s phone. As for whether the warrant was sufficiently particularized to authorize a search, this case is on all fours with Abney v. United States, 273 A.3d 852, 865-67 (D.C. 2022). As in that case, here "the officers could reasonably have believed that the warrant was neither overbroad nor insufficiently particular," id. at 865, so suppression was not warranted.
We therefore reject J.F.S.'s Fourth Amendment arguments, as well as a challenge he makes to the sufficiency of the evidence, and affirm.
I.
The Murder
Andy Bonilla was shot and killed while walking along Sherman Avenue in Columbia Heights, in January 2020. The murder was captured on video surveillance footage, which showed a black sedan driving down the street, small puffs of dust- consistent with bullet strikes-appearing on the facade of the building next to Bonilla, and Bonilla then collapsing. Bonilla was hit and killed by a single shot that had apparently been fired from inside the car. The car was later identified as a Honda Accord, which was recovered the same day. It had been stolen from Virginia.
On the day of Bonilla's murder, J.F.S., who was 15 years old at the time, purchased the stolen Honda Accord for $100. He and his friend B.V. (also a juvenile) drove to pick up their other friends Brian Santos and Alvero Lopez, and the four of them drove around Columbia Heights. According to a series of texts J.F.S. sent to a friend an hour before Bonilla was shot, they were "looking for da opps," an apparent reference to the opposition or rival crew, armed with three or four guns and 100 rounds of ammunition. Four minutes before the shooting, J.F.S. used his phone to record a video depicting a gun in his lap.
The evidence showed that, as the car approached Sherman Avenue, B.V. was driving and J.F.S. was sitting in the front passenger seat, with Santos and Lopez in the back. B.V. pointed to Bonilla and said, "that's Andy." Several occupants of the car opened fire on Bonilla, killing him. After the shooting, they continued to drive around, smoked weed, and stopped at a Safeway, before going their separate ways about two hours later. Minutes after separating from the group, J.F.S. texted another friend that he was "in deep shit" but "[d]on't make it hot," meaning that the friend should not draw police attention to it. He then suggested they should "t[e]xt on snap," referring to Snapchat, a phone application where messages automatically disappear after they are read.
Seizure of the Phone
About a month later, Officers Kevin Romero and Gerard Baretto were patrolling near J.F.S.'s house after an unrelated violent crime had occurred in the area. Officer Romero saw J.F.S. walking down the street and thought he looked like a suspect in an unrelated case. Both officers got out of their vehicle and approached J.F.S., who by this time was on the front porch of his house. They began talking to J.F.S., asking who he was and where he lived. J.F.S.'s mother, S.S., joined the officers on the porch and began complaining that J.F.S. never listens to her and that
he had been going out into the streets against her instructions. J.F.S. was using his phone at the time, and S.S. told him, "give me that phone right now." J.F.S. ignored her. S.S. told the officers that J.F.S. constantly disobeyed her and Officer Baretto advised, "[s]tart with the cell phone, take away his cell phone." S.S. explained that she had already disconnected the cellular service so the phone could only be used on Wi-Fi. She said, "[i]f you guys can take it away from him now, I'd be really thankful" and "tell him to give it to you." Neither officer nor S.S. took the cell phone at this point.
S.S. told the officers that she was worried for her family's safety. She relayed that two of J.F.S.'s friends had been murdered and police detectives had previously told her that J.F.S. was in danger too. Those detectives had told her that J.F.S. likely knew who murdered Bonilla, but that he wasn't telling them anything. S.S. and the officers spoke for a while about her concerns and, at the end of the conversation, Officer Baretto asked whether S.S. still wanted J.F.S.'s cell phone. S.S. said to J.F.S., "Yes, give me your phone." J.F.S. refused. Officer Baretto said "give it up" and touched J.F.S. on the wrist. J.F.S. gave the phone to his mother. The officers left.
Back in their vehicle, the officers called the homicide branch to report S.S.'s concern for her son's safety. A homicide detective who was apparently familiar with the investigation into Bonilla's murder told the officers to see if S.S. would give them the phone, so they returned to the house and spoke with S.S. J.F.S. was not present for this conversation. S.S. told the officers that she bought the phone for J.F.S. and that it was under her name. Officer Baretto relayed the detective's belief that the "phone may have information that could help [them] solve what happened" with the crimes in the area, and could help with her and her family's safety. He suggested that she turn the phone over to the police "voluntarily." S.S. said she "d[idn't] have any problem" with that. In fact, S.S. said she had already told J.F.S. that she had given the phone to the police so he wouldn't ask for it back, when in fact she had given it to her sister for safekeeping. J.F.S.'s father joined the conversation and both he and S.S. confirmed that they did not have the passcode to the phone and did not believe J.F.S. would give it to them. S.S. retrieved J.F.S.'s phone from her sister and gave it to the officers.
The officers returned to their vehicle and reported to the homicide branch that they had the phone. A homicide branch detective asked them to bring J.F.S. and S.S. in for an interview. The officers returned to the house a third time, spoke with J.F.S.
and S.S., and transported them both to the homicide branch so that officers could interview J.F.S.
Search of the Phone
Homicide detective Jonathan Jordan sought a warrant to search the phone. In his 21-page affidavit in support of the requested warrant, Detective Jordan laid out in detail the evidence the police had in connection with the Bonilla murder, including GPS tracking from the stolen Honda and the video surveillance footage showing Bonilla being shot. The affidavit explained that Santos and B.V. had been arrested for a separate murder in the days after Bonilla was killed. On their phones, officers found text messages tying them to Bonilla's murder. Several texts on the phones mentioned J.F.S.'s first name. One string of texts in particular placed J.F.S. with B.V., Santos, and Lopez in the stolen car at the Safeway about an hour after the murder: someone texted B.V., "[W]here y'all at[?]", to which B.V. responded, "safeway" with "al j[.][1] bryan," and confirmed that they were "still in the uu" (apparently a reference to the "unauthorized use" of a vehicle). The affidavit stated that officers believed that J.F.S. was likely in the car at the time of the murder and
that his phone likely contained evidence relating to the murder. The affidavit also identified different types of evidence-from videos to text messages to phone calls to GPS data-that Detective Jordan expected they might recover from the phone, similar to what they had recovered from the other suspects' phones. A judge issued the warrant in March 2020.
Upon searching the phone, officers found three key pieces of evidence: J.F.S.'s texts about "looking for da opps" while heavily armed, about an hour before the murder; the video of the gun in J.F.S.'s lap filmed four minutes before the murder; and his texts shortly after leaving the car that he was "in deep shit."
J.F.S. was arrested and brought to the police station for another interview. He was read his Miranda rights and agreed to waive them. Detective Jordan laid out the evidence that had led the police to suspect J.F.S.'s involvement in the murder, including his text...
To continue reading
Request your trial