A Wisconsin Court of Appeals has ruled that a search warrant for a man’s smartphone was overly broad and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that while there was probable cause to search the phone for evidence related to a battery incident, the warrant’s scope was not sufficiently limited, allowing for a search of virtually all the phone’s contents.
The case involves Emil L. Melssen, who was convicted of possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver, maintaining a drug trafficking place, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Melssen appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence used against him was obtained through illegal searches of his smartphone and residence. The court upheld the convictions based on the evidence presented at trial. However, it agreed with Melssen that the initial search warrant for his smartphone was unconstitutional.
The Initial Investigation
The charges stem from a police investigation into a physical altercation between Melssen and another individual, identified as Y.Z., in May 2021. The incident occurred outside a residence and led to both men being treated at a hospital. During the investigation, officers seized Melssen’s smartphone. Detective Paul Klang applied for a warrant to search the phone, claiming there was probable cause to believe it contained evidence related to “battery, domestic abuse incidents, and/or narcotic activity.”
The affidavit supporting the warrant application detailed the events of the altercation, including statements from Melssen, Y.Z., and a witness. It also included information about Melssen and A.B., the girlfriend of Y.Z., communicating by phone before and after the incident. Y.Z. also suggested that Melssen and A.B. regularly communicated about drugs.
Based on this information, the warrant-issuing judge approved a warrant authorizing a search for items related to battery, domestic abuse, and narcotic activity.
Overly Broad Warrant
The Court of Appeals found that the warrant was overly broad because it allowed officers to search for virtually everything on the phone. The warrant authorized a search of messages, images, search terms, passwords, correspondence, credit card bills, and call details.
The court cited the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. It emphasized that warrants must be specific, particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized. This “particularity requirement” ensures that searches are carefully tailored to their justifications and do not become “wide-ranging exploratory searches.”
The court acknowledged that smartphones contain vast amounts of personal information, effectively acting as “minicomputers” that hold a digital record of nearly every aspect of a person’s life. This makes the particularity requirement even more crucial in smartphone searches.
The court concluded that while there was probable cause to believe that evidence related to the battery incident might be found on the phone, the warrant was not sufficiently limited to that purpose. The court reasoned that the warrant should have been more specific, such as searching only call logs and communications from a specific time period.
The court noted that the warrant application did not establish probable cause for the broad search of the smartphone’s contents that the warrant authorized.
Impact on Evidence and Future Proceedings
The court vacated the circuit court’s order denying Melssen’s motion to suppress the evidence. It remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The circuit court must now address several key questions:
* Suppression of Evidence: Should any or all of the evidence found on Melssen’s smartphone be suppressed due to the Fourth Amendment violation?
* Residence Search: Should the evidence obtained in the search of Melssen’s residence be suppressed, considering the court’s findings about the smartphone evidence?
* New Trial: Is Melssen entitled to a new trial based on the suppression of any evidence?
The court emphasized that the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court, is not absolute. The state could argue for exceptions to the rule, such as the “good-faith” exception, which applies if law enforcement acted in good faith reliance on the warrant. The state could also argue that evidence was in “plain view” if officers had a valid reason to be in a location and the evidence was readily apparent.
The Court of Appeals did not make a decision on these issues but instructed the lower court to consider them.
The Residence Search
The court also addressed the search of Melssen’s residence, which was based on information obtained from the smartphone search. The court determined that once the information from the smartphone was excised, the primary evidence supporting the warrant to search the residence was a statement from Melssen about a “[m]ethamphetamine bong.” However, the circuit court had previously determined that this statement was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and should be removed.
Because the court did not determine whether the text messages should be suppressed, it also did not determine whether they could be used as probable cause to support the residence warrant. On remand, the circuit court should address how its conclusion on the smartphone evidence affects the validity of the warrant for the residence and any other related issue.
The Court of Appeals’ decision highlights the importance of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, especially in the context of digital searches. It underscores that law enforcement must carefully tailor search warrants to the specific evidence they are seeking, rather than conducting broad searches of a person’s digital devices.