Ah, how I love the Fourth Amendment, and reading this chapter threw me right back to Criminal Procedure: Investigation. And, if there is anything I remember from that course, it’s the fact that, usually, police cannot search the contents of someone’s digital device (i.e., a phone, tablet, etc.) without a warrant. However, the rules that dictate exceptions rely on whether the person, in this case, Dom, was arrested.
If he were, the “Chimel” rule would apply, in which an officer may search the area within the immediate control of the arrestee, known as the “grab lunge area,” to prevent the arrestee from (1) reaching for/grabbing a weapon or (2) destroying evidence. Examples of the “immediate control of the arrestee” can include the floor of the car, the glovebox, maybe the back of the driver’s seat. This does not extend to the technology found inside the car, such as the “black box.” Going through the two prongs of Chimel, it’s clear that the black box can’t be used as a weapon or used to physically harm the officer. So the question may fall to the second prong: “is there a chance that Toretto could destroy the evidence on the black box?” And the answer is: not really.
However, Toretto wasn’t arrested. He was hospitalized for the injuries he sustained from the accident. So, would Riley and Chimel even apply? I’m not so sure. So, we may need to fall back to one of the “OG” search and seizure cases, Katz v. United States, in which the Court ruled the 4th Amendment protects a person from unreasonable searches and seizures IF they had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” or “one that society deems as reasonable.” 389 U.S. 347 (1967). I think it’s fair to assume that Dom had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information on the black box. It’s reasonable to assume that police wouldn’t stifle through your technology’s data, making this an unreasonable search.
Further, the fact that to obtain/decode the information on the black box would require specialized software that’s only available to mechanics certified by the car’s manufacturer shows that this goes way outside the scope of what is allowed by a warrantless search conducted by police.
So, sadly, officers will need to obtain a warrant before going through with their search of the black box. But have no fear! The evidence on the Black Box is more than likely not going anywhere unless Torrento’s family can destroy the evidence on it before officers can obtain a warrant.
Leave a Reply