WOODLAND, CA – Judge Daniel M. Wolk of the Yolo County Superior Court denied the return of a cell phone to the accused in a hearing here Friday, despite acknowledging the necessity of the item in the accused’s life as a method of communication.
The accused is charged with contacting or communicating with a minor, and arranging a meeting with a minor.
Deputy Public Defender Stephen Betz brought a Motion for Return of Property to the court, asking the accused’s cell phone, which had been seized through a warrant, be returned to him.
DPD Betz claimed that a cell phone is important to modern life, and the return of this item would not hinder the investigation in any way.
According to DPD Betz, the contents of the phone had been replicated through accurate forensic tools often relied upon in court, and thus the accused could not tamper with the evidence. He also questioned why an analysis of the phone’s data had not been completed in the 158 days the phone had been in evidence.
DPD Betz cited the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act to assert that the retention of the phone was “unreasonable and unnecessary at this point.”
Deputy District Attorney David William Robbins argued against the request by defining the phone as an instrument of the crime, because it had allegedly been used to solicit a minor.
Additionally, DDA Robbins clarified that he had no way of knowing to what extent the contents of the phone had been downloaded, as differences in the operating systems sometimes prevented a complete download of the data.
Addressing DPD Betz’s claim the accused couldn’t tamper with the evidence, DDA Robbins stated the accused could change the contents of the phone and say “this didn’t occur.”
DDA Robbins called the return of the phone a “slippery slope,” considering the active investigation and instrumentality of the crime.
DPD Betz then responded to DDA Robbins’ arguments, stating “there is prejudice here.”
According to the public defender, the phone was being held despite it no longer being needed in the investigation, considering there was a complete forensic copy of the contents.
Seizing the accused’s phone, as stated by DPD Betz, was an intrusion and hindered communication between him and the accused.
DPD Betz, having compiled a list of cellphone prices for the court, talked about how the accused qualified for Public Defender Assistance and “(didn’t) make a fair amount of money.”
Then, DDA Robbins stated it was “no different than if a vehicle was used to commit a crime,” claiming that vehicles are also necessary to everyday life, but would not be released in this situation.
Suggesting other alternatives, DDA Robbins mentioned the accused could access assistance programs or cheaper options, even using his mother’s phone or landline.
To this, DPD Betz said the accused’s mother has dementia, and any messages left on her phone were not reaching him.
DPD Betz ended his argument by asking the court to recognize the amount of time the phone had been in evidence and to set a deadline for its return.
Judge Wolk then spoke about how he was balancing the fact that phones are an essential part of everyday life against the fact that this was an instrument of crime, seized with a warrant, and there was a need to hold onto it.
According to Judge Wolk, while law enforcement had held the phone for a long period of time, there was a possibility of needing it in the future despite the existence of a full download.
Judge Wolk denied the motion, recognizing that phones are expensive but claiming there are other options. According to the judge, the “balance falls in favor of law enforcement keeping the phone.”
