A Case Study on U
U.S. vs. Wurie
Alex Brown On September 7, 2007, officers observed Fred Wade talking on his cell phone in a Boston, Massachusetts parking lot. Shortly after Wade got into a car being driven by Brima Wurie. Wurie then pulled out of the parking lot, went 150 yards down the road, made a U-Turn and continued to pull back into the parking lot they had just left from. Police believing they just witnessed a drug bust confronted Wade and found cocaine. Other officers arrested Wurie. When Wurie arrived at the police station, his cell phone rang. Wurie’s cell phone continued to go off multiple times and on the front screen of the cellphone a picture of a lady holding a baby kept coming up on the front screen with the caller ID reading “my house” on it. The police then opened the phone and traced the call to an address in Boston knowing that Wurie might have more drugs in his South Boston home. The police went to the address, knocked and upon the owner opening the door the police smelled marijuana. The police recognized the woman who opened the door as the one that was in the caller ID picture. The police obtained a warrant and found 215 grams of cocaine, a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, and paraphernalia. On March 28, 2008, a Grand Jury indicted Wurie for a felony possession of a firearm and ammunition, distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Wurie moved to suppress the evidence gained from his cell phone and argued that by the police searching his phone had violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court denied Wurie’s motion on grounds that the cell phone search was incident to his arrest and was limited and reasonable. The question that arises is does the Fourth Amendment allow police to conduct a warrantless search on the cell phone belonging to a person who has been lawfully arrested?
Chief Justice Brown’s opinion is that a search of the cellphone of the convicted is
Alex Brown On September 7, 2007, officers observed Fred Wade talking on his cell phone in a Boston, Massachusetts parking lot. Shortly after Wade got into a car being driven by Brima Wurie. Wurie then pulled out of the parking lot, went 150 yards down the road, made a U-Turn and continued to pull back into the parking lot they had just left from. Police believing they just witnessed a drug bust confronted Wade and found cocaine. Other officers arrested Wurie. When Wurie arrived at the police station, his cell phone rang. Wurie’s cell phone continued to go off multiple times and on the front screen of the cellphone a picture of a lady holding a baby kept coming up on the front screen with the caller ID reading “my house” on it. The police then opened the phone and traced the call to an address in Boston knowing that Wurie might have more drugs in his South Boston home. The police went to the address, knocked and upon the owner opening the door the police smelled marijuana. The police recognized the woman who opened the door as the one that was in the caller ID picture. The police obtained a warrant and found 215 grams of cocaine, a firearm, ammunition, marijuana, and paraphernalia. On March 28, 2008, a Grand Jury indicted Wurie for a felony possession of a firearm and ammunition, distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school, and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Wurie moved to suppress the evidence gained from his cell phone and argued that by the police searching his phone had violated his Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Court denied Wurie’s motion on grounds that the cell phone search was incident to his arrest and was limited and reasonable. The question that arises is does the Fourth Amendment allow police to conduct a warrantless search on the cell phone belonging to a person who has been lawfully arrested?
Chief Justice Brown’s opinion is that a search of the cellphone of the convicted is