Searches and Seizures—Cell Phones—Voluntary Disclosure.

After defendant’s arrest, defendant voluntarily disclosed his cell phone passcode to a police officer. The trial court concluded that defendant provided the passcode to the officer for a limited purpose. Later, the police obtained a warrant to search defendant’s phone and used the previously provided passcode to execute the search warrant. Despite concluding that the search warrant was valid, the trial court suppressed the fruits of the search. The trial court concluded that the search was a consent search that exceeded the scope of defendant’s consent because the police may not have been able to access the phone without defendant’s passcode. The People brought this interlocutory appeal.

The Supreme Court concluded that the search of the phone was not a consent search, but rather a search pursuant to a valid warrant. The Court also concluded that defendant did not manifest a legitimate expectation of privacy in the digits of his passcode because he voluntarily disclosed his passcode to a police officer after his arrest. Accordingly, law enforcement was at liberty to use the passcode to execute the search warrant.