Background
A mother reported that an adult man using the Snapchat name “Amiro Fenomeno” had offered her sixteen-year-old daughter vape pens in exchange for sex. The daughter said the man knew her age, had given her a vape pen, and had asked her to make out, enter his car, and have his babies. Investigators connected the account and the vehicle described by the mother to Amir Mulamba.
During a consensual interview at Mulamba’s home, investigators confirmed that his Snapchat username was “Amiro Fenomeno.” When questioning turned to his Snapchat activity, Mulamba shielded his phone and admitted deleting items. Investigators seized the phone without a warrant and later obtained a search warrant. The search uncovered sexually explicit material involving a different minor, resulting in a charge of producing child pornography. Mulamba conditionally pleaded guilty after the district court denied his suppression motion.
The Court’s Holding
A divided Eighth Circuit affirmed. The majority held that the warrantless seizure was reasonable because officers had probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence of attempted child sex trafficking and exigent circumstances required immediate action. The mother’s detailed report, corroborating information from her daughter, the links between Mulamba and the Snapchat account and vehicle, the suggestive messages, and Mulamba’s apparent deletion of material together established probable cause. His active deletion of items, coupled with previously deleted Snapchat messages, gave officers an objectively reasonable basis to believe evidence faced imminent destruction.
The court also rejected Mulamba’s challenge under Franks v. Delaware. The warrant affidavit omitted that investigators had inaccurately told Mulamba they had a warrant before he consented, omitted the daughter’s statement that she had sent nude images only to another teenager, and misstated that Mulamba took nine rather than three minutes to retrieve his phone. Even after correcting those matters, the affidavit still established probable cause that the phone contained evidence of attempted sex trafficking. Judge Kelly dissented, concluding that the officers lacked probable cause when they seized the phone and that the resulting evidence should have been suppressed.
Key Takeaways
- Officers may temporarily seize a cellphone without a warrant when probable cause and an imminent risk of evidence destruction exist.
- A suspect’s deletion of phone content can contribute to probable cause and exigency when considered with other evidence linking the phone to suspected criminal activity.
- A Franks challenge fails if the corrected affidavit—including omitted facts and excluding misstatements—still establishes probable cause.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the probable-cause and exigent-circumstances exceptions to a cellphone, whose contents ordinarily receive strong Fourth Amendment protection. It indicates that investigators may secure a phone while seeking a warrant when the surrounding evidence ties it to a crime and the user appears to be deleting relevant material.
The dissent underscores the countervailing privacy concern: deleting personal material or shielding a phone during a voluntary interview does not necessarily indicate criminal activity, particularly when the evidence of the suspected offense is disputed.