## Facts

- Border Patrol agents stopped Chad Daniel Camou’s truck at an immigration checkpoint in Westmorland, California, and found an undocumented passenger lying on the floor behind the front seats.
- Agents arrested and handcuffed Camou, his passenger Ashley Lundy, and the undocumented passenger; they seized Camou’s truck and a cell phone from the cab.
- The arrestees were taken to checkpoint security offices for booking, and an agent inventoried the phone as seized property and evidence.
- During Lundy’s interview, she identified a phone number associated with a person who arranged the transport; Camou’s phone rang several times showing that number, and Camou acknowledged the phone was his.
- About 1 hour and 20 minutes after the arrest, an agent searched the phone at the security offices, reviewing call logs and then videos and photographs; while scrolling through many images, he found apparent child pornography.
- Investigators later obtained a federal warrant to search the phone for child pornography and found hundreds of images; Camou was charged federally with possession of child pornography.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless search of Camou’s cell phone at the checkpoint offices was a valid search incident to arrest.
2. Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search and, if so, whether the search scope was permissible.
3. Whether the automobile exception permitted searching the phone as a “container” found in a vehicle.
4. Whether the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine despite an unconstitutional search.
5. Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Camou’s suppression motion.
- The cell-phone search was not a valid search incident to arrest because it was not roughly contemporaneous with the arrest and occurred after intervening booking-related events.
- Exigent circumstances were not shown; in any event, searching extensive photos and videos was broader than any claimed need to preserve limited call data.
- The automobile exception did not apply because a cell phone’s digital contents are not treated as a searchable “container” under that doctrine.
- Inevitable discovery was not established because the government did not show a demonstrated probability of lawful discovery by independent means.
- Good faith did not apply where the government failed to show the searching agent relied on a warrant, binding precedent, or other authoritative guidance.

## Legal Principles

- A search incident to arrest must be tied to officer-safety and evidence-preservation rationales and be roughly contemporaneous with the arrest; substantial delay and intervening custodial processing can defeat the exception.
- Exigent-circumstances searches require an immediate need for action, and any warrantless search must be strictly limited in scope to the exigency that justifies it.
- The automobile exception does not authorize a warrantless search of a cell phone’s digital contents merely because the phone was found in a vehicle.
- Inevitable discovery requires a demonstrated probability that evidence would have been found through lawful, independent investigative steps.
- The good-faith exception requires an objectively reasonable basis for the officers’ actions, typically grounded in reliance on a warrant or binding legal authority.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ordered suppression of images derived from a warrantless cell-phone search conducted well after arrest and after booking-related intervening steps, rejecting search-incident, exigency, and automobile-exception justifications and finding neither inevitable discovery nor good faith cured the Fourth Amendment violation.


United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2014)