Brief for Petitioner Question

No. 13 - 212
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES
Petitioner
v.
BRIMA WURIE
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________________
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THEUNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THEFIRST CIRCUIT
______________________________________________________________________________
Brief for Petitioner
Question Presented
Under the Fourth Amendment, can the police conduct a warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone if it poses as a source of evidence or information relevant to the investigation?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question Presented......................................................................................................................i
Table of Authorities................................................................................................................... iii
Opinions Below….......................................................................................................................1
Statement of Jurisdiction….........................................................................................................1
Constitutional Provisions involved..............................................................................................1
Statement of The Case………………..........................................................................................2
Summary of Argument………….................................................................................................4
Argument ……….........................................................................................................................5
* THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE RESPONDENTS CELL PHONE DID NOT VIOLATE THE RESPONDENT'S RIGHTS AS PROVIDED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT…………………………………………….
* THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED BLANKET PROHIBITION AND CONTRADICTS DECISIONS OF FOURTH, FIFTH AND SEVENTH CIRCUITS...…………………….…………………
* THE SEARCH WAS REASONABLE IN ACCORDANCE TO PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES…………………
Conclusion…………………………...…………………………………………………………..
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, (1977)……………………………………….….12, 13, 14
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63 (1969)………………………………………9, 11, 16
United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800,  (1974)………………………………………..11, 12, 16
United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803, 804 (7th Cir.2012)……………………………….14
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, (1967)…..……………………………………………14
United States v.Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 221 n. 2, (1973).….…………………………......passim
OPINIONS BELOW
The Opinion of United States Court of Appeals of the First Circuit is reported as United States v. Wurie728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013). This opinion was decided on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lower court opinion is unreported (Criminal No. 08-10071-RGS, 2009)
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INCLUDED
The United States Constitution Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supportedby Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This case's judgment by the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit was made on May 17, 2013. Subsequently, a petition to hear the case again was denied on July 29, 2013 (Appeal, 70a-73a). The jurisdiction of the Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C 1254(1).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Subsequent to a trial in the United States District Court of Massachusetts, Brima Wurie (the respondent) was found guilty of:illegal possession of a firearm and rounds of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) (Count 1), distributing crack cocaine in a violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (Count 2), and possessing crack Cocaine with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (Count 3). The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals annulled his convictions on counts 1 and 3on the grounds that evidence used in support of these convictions were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court then remanded his conviction on Count 2 for re-sentencing. As a result, he was sentenced to 262 months incarceration.The following are specific statements for the case.
The respondent was arrested on September 5, 2007 after the police witnessed him conducting a drug transaction. An officer together with his partner observed BrimaWurie park his vehicle in the Lil Peach store parking lot and invite another man later identified as Fred Wade, into his car. The officers believed the two were engaging in a drug transaction. This was later confirmed once Wade was arrested after parting ways with Wurie: Wade was found with two plastic bags containing 3.5 grams of crack cocaine each. Officer Murphy subsequently informed another officer trailing Wurie at the moment of the occurrence. The officer was able to stop and arrest Wurie, whom he later booked into Boston police station for drug distribution charges. At the station, Wurie's two cell phones, set of keys and $1,275 in cash were taken from his person. After a period of five to ten minutes since Wurie was taken into the station, two other officers noticed his LG Verizon flip phone ringing with the contact name “My house” displaying on the outer screen. A few moments later, the officers decided to open the phone to check thecall log. Once they did so they were able to observe the wallpaper of the mobile phone, which had a photo of a black woman holding a child. They proceeded to press the button to allow them access the call log twice whereby they were able to see the number attached to the caller I.D. labeled “My House”. Subsequently, the police officers decided to run the contact details on the white pages search directory to determine the address, which turned out to be on Speedwell Street, Dorchester, South Boston. This was the location where the respondent had parked his car prior to his arrest. After providing Miranda warnings to Wurie for another time, sergeant detective Murphy questioned Wurie, who denied living at the address, having someone else in his car at the stated time and selling crack cocaine. Given the circumstances involving the amount the respondent was carrying in cash and having two cell phones something associated with drug dealers, the police believed that the respondent had a cache of more crack cocaine at the address. For this reason, the police officers decided to enter the house, where they found a mailbox listed as ‘Wurie and Cristal', they also observed a woman through the first floor window who closely resembled the one on the cell phone's wallpaper. They consequently entered the apartment for purposes of freezing it as they awaited a search warrant. After the search, they were able to recover 215 grams of crack cocaine, four bags of marijuana, a firearm, ammunition and $250 in cash among other things.
Wurie, as a result was charged with possession and intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) in addition to distributing crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) as well as for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). He moved for a motion to suppress evidence used in his trial as it was obtained via a warrantless search of his cell phone data. Even so, the District Court of Massachusetts denied the motion tosuppress. After a four-day trial, the jury found Wurie guilty of all the stated three counts and he was given a 262-month sentencing to serve time in prison.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
This argument aims to persuade the United States Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, the United States governmentregarding the scope of application of the Fourth Amendment when the defendant was arrested in 2007. This appellate brief therefore addresses the question of ‘whether the search of an arrestee's cell phone subsequent to a lawful arrest qualifies under the ‘Search incident to arrest' exception to the Fourth Amendment?' An appeal to a United States Appeal...