Ineffective assistance of counsel; Search & seizure; Warrant requirements; Warrantless search; People v Roberts; The exigent-circumstances exception; People v Blasius; People v Trapp; Probable cause

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding the exigent-circumstances exception applied to the seizure of one of defendant’s cell phone. Thus, he was not entitled to a new trial based on the ineffective assistance of counsel because he could not show how the outcome of his trial could have been different had defense counsel objected to the seizure. The court previously found that defendant’s trial counsel “did not provide effective assistance when he erroneously agreed that a warrant authorized the seizure of one of defendant’s cell phones” during a murder investigation. Thus, it remanded. On remand, the trial court found defendant was not entitled to a new trial because while “no warrant authorized the seizure, the exigent-circumstances exception applied, and therefore defendant did not suffer any prejudice from counsel’s error.” In the present appeal, the court agreed, finding the police had probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence related to the murder. Defendant’s codefendant, Griffin, “had communicated both before the murder and after the murder with the” phone and it “was located near the crime scene the evening before the shooting, and it was located about 12 minutes away from the crime scene about 12 minutes after the shooting.” This information, “coupled with the fact that Griffin’s phone appeared to have been reset around noon on the day of the shooting, strongly suggests that whoever Griffin was communicating with was involved with the murder.” The court also found the police had probable cause to seize the other phones in the vehicle defendant had been driving, noting that once they determined the phone at issue was there, “they had probable cause to seize any other communication devices inside that vehicle because it is reasonable to believe that because the possessor of the . . . phone was involved with the murder, then his other communication devices could contain evidence as well.” Finally, the court found that the “specific and objective facts support the conclusion that there were exigent circumstances to seize the phone without a warrant.” And the exigent circumstances “were not created by the officers. Once the vehicle was stopped, it was reasonable for the officers to seize the cell phones to prevent the destruction of evidence while seeking a warrant.” The facts the police “relied on objectively showed that there was an actual current danger of” their losing the phone and the data in it. “Based on the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that all three phones contained evidence of the murder.” Affirmed.