Background
Defendant was arrested ten days after a murder victim’s death. Officers seized his iPhone during the arrest. A detective trained in digital forensics used a GrayKey device to extract data from the iPhone without first obtaining a search warrant, claiming the extraction was necessary to preserve evidence. The extracted data was stored in the GrayKey and remained unreadable at that point. A search warrant was obtained the next day, and only after the warrant issued did police use a different tool to analyze the extracted data from the defendant’s iPhone.
Defendant moved to suppress the data extracted from the warrantless seizure, asserting a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court denied the motion, finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless extraction. Defendant appealed, arguing the detective lacked sufficient technical knowledge to establish that iPhone data would dissipate during idle time and that expert testimony was required to support the exigency finding.
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the warrantless extraction was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The court applied the reasonable-belief standard, examining the facts and circumstances known to police at the time of the extraction. The detective, who had certification in cell phone extraction and specific knowledge of iPhones, testified that he understood iPhones run background processes during idle time that could make it difficult to access data and that he was aware data could dissipate.
The court concluded that the detective had an objectively reasonable belief that if access to the data was delayed, access to the defendant’s passcode would become more difficult and that evidence could have already dissipated or could further dissipate if not extracted. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that specific technical knowledge of the iPhone’s inner workings or expert testimony was required to establish exigency. The court found the detective’s practical knowledge and reasonable belief sufficient to justify the warrantless seizure under exigent circumstances.
This decision is significant because it clarifies how Fourth Amendment protections apply to digital evidence and mobile phones in the modern criminal investigation context. By affirming that law enforcement can extract data from seized phones without a warrant when exigent circumstances exist—specifically, reasonable concern about data dissipation—the court establishes a framework that could expand police authority in digital searches while potentially narrowing defendant protections in the early stages of smartphone seizures.
The ruling matters to both prosecutors and criminal defendants. It provides law enforcement with a practical pathway to preserve mobile device evidence immediately upon seizure without waiting for warrant approval, but it also sets a relatively accessible standard for establishing exigency in the digital context based on reasonable belief rather than definitive proof. Defense practitioners should be aware that objections to warrantless digital extraction must directly challenge the officer’s reasonable basis for believing evidence would dissipate, not merely question technical details or demand expert testimony.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.