Moats v. State

• Decision Date: 31 August 2017
• Docket Number: No. 89,89
• Parties: TIMOTHY ALAN MOATS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

TIMOTHY ALAN MOATS
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND

No. 89

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Argued: May 8, 2017
September Term, 2016
August 31, 2017

CRIMINAL LAW — FOURTH AMENDMENT — SEARCH WARRANT FOR CELL PHONE — SUBSTANTIAL BASIS — The affidavit in support of the search warrant provided a substantial basis for the warrant-issuing judge to find probable cause to search Petitioner's cell phone where the affidavit provided detailed allegations of Petitioner's involvement with drug possession and distribution and a sexual assault; Petitioner confessed that he possessed and distributed drugs; and the officer stated his opinion that, based on his training and experience as a Criminal Investigator, individuals who participate in such crimes communicate via cell phones.

Page 2

Circuit Court for Garrett County
Case No. 11-K-15-005189

Barbera, C.J., Greene Adkins McDonald Watts Hotten Getty, JJ.

Opinion by Barbera, C.J.
Greene and Adkins, JJ., concur.

Page 3

We granted a writ of certiorari in this case to consider the scope of information necessary to supply probable cause for a warrant to search a cell phone. Petitioner, Timothy Alan Moats, was convicted of possession of child pornography, based in large part on photographs and a video the police found on his cell phone while executing a warrant to search it. Before trial, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the photographs and video. The circuit court denied the motion and, on appeal following Petitioner's conviction, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the circuit court's ruling, holding that the affidavit in support of the warrant provided a substantial basis for the judge who issued the warrant to find probable cause to search the cell phone. Moats v. State, 230 Md. App. 374, 394 (2016). The intermediate appellate court held, in the alternative, that even if there was not a substantial basis for issuance of the warrant, the police acted in good faith reliance upon it. Id. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the warrant was supported by probable cause. We therefore have no need to address the applicability of the good faith doctrine.

I Background

The case before us stems from discoveries the police made while investigating an unrelated incident. The pertinent facts of that investigation and its connection to this case were presented through the testimony of Sergeant Robert Zimmerman of the Garrett County Sheriff's Office. Sergeant Zimmerman was the only witness to testify at the hearing on Petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search of Petitioner's cell phone. Sergeant Zimmerman's undisputed testimony and the affidavit for

Page 4

the search warrant supplied the following information:

One night in early January 2015, Petitioner and three other teenagers were riding in Petitioner's car through parts of Garrett County. During the ride, Petitioner provided marijuana and a pill containing Suboxone, a prescription drug used to treat opioid addiction. Petitioner crushed the pill with a lighter, snorted some of the substance using a dollar bill, and then passed it to the others. Later that night, the four teenagers arrived at a party, where it was later alleged that one member of the group, A.D.C., was sexually assaulted. Approximately two weeks later, Sergeant Zimmerman interviewed A.D.C., who recounted the events of the night in question, including Petitioner's provision of Suboxone. Sergeant Zimmerman later interviewed the others who had been in the car that night, including Petitioner.

Petitioner told Sergeant Zimmerman that he and the others had used drugs, but he denied any involvement in the sexual assault of A.D.C. Relying in part on that admission, as well as the reports and interviews with A.D.C. and the other teenagers, the police obtained a warrant to arrest Petitioner on the drug-related charges.¹ Sergeant Zimmerman testified that the police arrested Petitioner on January 23, 2015, and transported him to the Garrett County jail, where he was searched and the police seized the cell phone he was carrying.² Petitioner was released from custody on January 24, 2015. His cell phone was

Page 5

not returned to him. Sergeant Zimmerman retained it "[t]o obtain further information on the investigation with [A.D.C.] and the sex offense, along with the CDS case."

On January 26, 2015, two days after Petitioner's release, Sergeant Zimmerman prepared an application and affidavit for a warrant to search the cell phone. Consistent with his testimony at the suppression hearing, Sergeant Zimmerman included in the affidavit Petitioner's admission to distribution of Suboxone and marijuana. He also recounted his interview with A.D.C., who explained in detail the car ride during which Petitioner used and distributed the Suboxone. Sergeant Zimmerman further recounted that he had interviewed the other passengers in the vehicle on the night in question and obtained from them the same information regarding the drug use. Sergeant Zimmerman also included information concerning his interview of a fifth person, R.W., who was not in the vehicle on the evening in question but later learned from A.D.C. about the drug distribution and sexual assault.

The warrant affidavit also included the circumstances of Petitioner's arrest on January 23, 2015, and the seizure of the cell phone in Petitioner's possession at the time of his arrest. The warrant affidavit further stated:

Your Affiant knows through his training and experience as a Criminal Investigator that individuals who participate in such crimes communicate via cellular telephones, via text messages, calls, e-mails etc.

Your Affiant avers, based on the information received from the

Page 6

aforementioned sources, your Affiant's observations, training, knowledge and expertise as a member of the Garrett County Sheriff's Office, Criminal Investigation Division, that there is probable cause to believe, and does believe, that evidence of violations of the laws relating to Sexual Offense, and related crimes, as well as the Possession and Distribution of Controlled Dangerous Substances as herein before cited, is contained in and upon the aforementioned cellular telephone.

The affidavit details Sergeant Zimmerman's training and experience as a seventeen-year veteran of the Garrett County Sheriff's Office, including his work with the Garrett County Narcotics Task Force and with crimes involving Controlled Dangerous Substances.³ The

Page 7

affidavit also provided detail regarding the types of cell phone data to be searched:

Therefore, your Affiant prays that a Search and Seizure Warrant be issued for the aforesaid cellular phone more particularly described aforesaid with the necessary and proper assistance to:

(A) Seize and cause to be completely examined by Your Affiant or, if necessary, a competent forensic cellular phone examiner, any and all electronic data processing and storage devices located in the above-described cellular telephone. Any phone call records being sent or received on these devices, any text mail "messages" sent or received on these devices, any

Page 8

stored, un-stored, unsorted phone numbers on these devices, any photographs stored on these devices, any external memory devices used on these devices in or incidental to the mentioned aforesaid crimes, as defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland, amended and revised; and
(B) Seize and cause to be completely examined by Your Affiant or, if necessary, a competent forensic cellular telephone[ ] examiner[,] all media storage devices, including but not limited to e-mail content, text messages, photos and/or financial records and/or any and all account information that would relate to the aforesaid crimes, as defined in the Annotated Code of Maryland[.]

Later that same day, a judge of the District Court sitting in Garrett County issued the warrant.

Detective Keith Parks conducted a forensic investigation of the cell phone. In the course of that search, he discovered sexually explicit photographs and a video of a young female, taken between January 16 and 21, 2015. It was eventually discovered that the female in the photographs and video was Petitioner's girlfriend, who was fifteen years old at the time those images were created. Petitioner, eighteen years old at that time, was indicted in the present case with three counts relating to child pornography and one count of second degree assault.

II The Proceedings

A. The motion to suppress

Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the cell phone and the evidence obtained from the search of it. He advanced several arguments, all of which were grounded in the

Page 9

protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.⁴ A hearing on that motion was held on June 18, 2015.

Petitioner argued first that his arrest on January 23, 2015, was not supported by probable cause and, therefore, the cell phone and its contents must be suppressed as the tainted "fruits" of the illegal arrest.⁵ He further argued that, even if that arrest was lawful, the continued retention of his cell phone after his release on January 24, 2015, constituted an illegal warrantless seizure. From that premise, he further argued that the subsequent search of the cell phone, notwithstanding that it was conducted pursuant to a warrant, was the tainted fruit of the seizure of the cell phone. Petitioner also attacked the search warrant on the ground that it did not set forth probable cause to conduct the search. He asserted, in particular, that the affidavit in support of the warrant did not set forth probable cause for either the police to have arrested him for the crimes alleged in early January 2015 or to establish a "nexus" between those crimes and the contents on his cell phone.

Petitioner did not testify at the hearing on the motion, call any witnesses, or offer any evidence other than a document from "Case Search"⁶ reflecting his release on January 24, 2015. Following arguments from counsel, the court...