California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Anderson is that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to CalECPA violations, permitting admission of electronic device evidence when law enforcement reasonably believed they had valid consent from an authorized possessor, under circumstances where a deceased person's next of kin consents to search the decedent's phone and no other person has a stronger claim to possession.

Appeal from judgment after guilty plea in Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

Defendant Appellant was Milo William Anderson — a participant in an armed robbery who pleaded no contest to second degree robbery after the trial court denied his motion to suppress cell phone evidence.

Defendant Appellant was Edward Lee Allen, Jr. — a participant in an armed robbery who pleaded no contest to first degree residential burglary after the trial court denied his motion to suppress cell phone evidence.

The suit sounded in criminal charges arising from an armed robbery. Anderson and Allen participated with others in robbing Jacob Cabral at gunpoint in his San Jose home garage, stealing $20,000 in cash from $40,000 Cabral kept hidden in the garage walls.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that during the robbery, co-participant Tyrone Lampley was found dead near Cabral's home after gunshots were heard. Police found Lampley's cell phone in his pocket, obtained consent from Lampley's mother (his next of kin) to search the phone, and discovered text messages implicating Allen in the robbery, which led to additional evidence against both defendants.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied defendants' motion to suppress evidence from Lampley's phone, ruling that Lampley's mother was an authorized possessor under CalECPA and law enforcement reasonably believed she could consent to the search.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether evidence from Lampley's phone should have been suppressed because law enforcement violated CalECPA by searching the phone without a warrant based on consent from the decedent's mother.

The Appellate Court held that even assuming law enforcement violated CalECPA, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to CalECPA violations, and law enforcement acted in objective good faith in believing Lampley's mother as next of kin was an authorized possessor of the deceased's phone.

The case is inapplicable when the deceased person's electronic device is not in the possession of or accessible to the family member claiming authority to consent, when another person has a stronger claim to be the authorized possessor, or when law enforcement lacks objective reasonable belief that the consenting party has authority over the device.

The case leaves open the precise definition of "authorized possessor" under CalECPA when the device owner dies, and whether family members other than parents (such as spouses or adult children) can consent to searches of a deceased person's electronic devices.