Facts
- After a high-speed crash that killed a passenger, police impounded the vehicle driven by Charles Wiley Worsham, Jr.
- The vehicle contained an event data recorder (EDR) that continuously collected detailed operational information (e.g., speed, braking, steering, seat-belt status, airbag warnings, and changes in velocity).
- Accessing and interpreting EDR data required specialized equipment and trained expertise and was not available through ordinary observation or use of the vehicle.
- Twelve days after the crash, law enforcement downloaded the EDR data from the impounded vehicle without a warrant and without Worsham’s consent.
- Police later sought a warrant, but the application was denied because the extraction had already occurred.
- Worsham was charged with DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide and moved to suppress the EDR data; the trial court granted suppression, and the State appealed.
Issues
- Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in data stored on a vehicle’s EDR.
- Whether warrantless downloading of EDR data from an impounded vehicle, without consent or exigent circumstances, is an unreasonable search requiring suppression.
- Whether the State carried its burden to justify the warrantless extraction under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Decision
- The appellate court affirmed the suppression order.
- The court held that motorists have a reasonable expectation of privacy in EDR information.
- Downloading EDR data from an impounded vehicle using specialized equipment constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
- Because the extraction occurred without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances (and without any argued exception), the search was unconstitutional and the EDR data was properly suppressed.
Legal Principles
- Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the Florida Constitution, subject only to specifically established exceptions.
- When the government conducts a warrantless search, the State bears the burden to show the search was lawful under an exception.
- A reasonable expectation of privacy may exist in non-public, technologically stored information that is not accessible by ordinary observation and requires specialized tools to retrieve.
- On review of a suppression ruling, factual findings supported by competent substantial evidence are upheld, while constitutional questions are reviewed de novo.
Conclusion
The court held that accessing an automobile’s event data recorder to obtain detailed operational data is a search and, absent a warrant or a valid exception, police may not download EDR information from an impounded vehicle; evidence obtained through such warrantless extraction must be suppressed.