Kevin Andre Barnes appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress text messages recovered from his cellphone. The government had seized the phone and obtained a search warrant one day later. Barnes did not challenge the initial seizure or the validity of that first warrant. Instead, he argued that the government's failure to complete the forensic search within the 90-day period referenced in the warrant application, and its delay of approximately one year before seeking a second warrant, rendered the continued retention of the phone an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine if the duration of the seizure was reasonable. The court acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment protects possessory interests and that a lawful seizure can become unreasonable if its duration is excessive. The analysis required balancing the nature of the intrusion against the government's interests, considering factors like the government's diligence and whether the defendant sought the return of the property. The court concluded the retention was reasonable for three main reasons. First, the government obtained a search warrant one day after the seizure, and the warrant was supported by probable cause, distinguishing the case from situations where seizures rest on less than probable cause. Second, the delay occurred during a period of significant disruptions in court operations and investigative resources in the Southern District of California due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. Third, Barnes agreed to multiple continuances during this period but never moved for the return of his phone. While the one-year delay in seeking a second warrant weighed in Barnes's favor, the totality of the circumstances, including the prompt initial warrant, continuing probable cause, pandemic-related disruptions, and the absence of any request for return, supported the district court's conclusion.
The decision affirms that a one-year retention of a cellphone can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the government acts diligently initially and external factors like a pandemic contribute to delays. It reinforces that a defendant's failure to request the return of seized property is a significant factor in the reasonableness analysis. The text messages recovered from the device remain admissible for trial, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this affirmation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download