Boston’s Criminal
Defense Lawyer
Defense Lawyer
Phone, Computer, and Digital Device Searches in Massachusetts
Police seize phones, laptops, and tablets in ordinary Massachusetts criminal cases: drug cases, firearms cases, fraud cases, harassment cases, and domestic violence cases. This page explains how police take a device, how they get permission to search it, what that permission covers, and what the defense can challenge at each step.
Police must justify four distinct actions: taking the device, holding it while seeking a warrant, obtaining the warrant, and searching within the warrant’s limits. A violation at any stage can support a motion to suppress even if the officers complied with the rules at the other stages.
Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995 and litigates digital suppression motions in the District Courts, the Boston Municipal Court, and the Superior Court. Serpa Law Office can be reached at 617.936.0201.
A separate page covers what happens later, at trial: digital evidence in Massachusetts criminal cases addresses authentication, authorship, hearsay, and admissibility. This page addresses how the Commonwealth obtained the material in the first place.
Seizure of the Device
Police may take a device from a person, a car, or a home on the same authority that governs any other seizure. A seizure requires probable cause to believe the device contains evidence of a crime, or a recognized exception. Officers often seize a phone during an arrest, during the execution of a search warrant for a location, or after a stop.
Two questions follow every seizure.
Whether the encounter that produced it was lawful. A phone seized after an unlawful stop, exit order, patfrisk, or entry is subject to the same challenge as any other item taken in that encounter. See illegal searches and seizures in Massachusetts.
Whether probable cause connected this device to this offense. In Commonwealth v. White, 475 Mass. 583 (2016), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the fact of a charge plus the fact that the defendant owned a phone did not establish probable cause to seize it. The affidavit must state particular facts connecting the device to the alleged crime.
Seizing a device is not the same as searching it. A lawful seizure permits police to hold the device. It does not permit them to open it.
Retention While Police Seek a Warrant
Police frequently hold a device for weeks or months before applying for a search warrant. The length of that hold is separately litigable, and the standard is the reasonableness of the delay under the totality of the circumstances, weighing the strength of the government’s interest against the possessory interest of the person whose device it is.
On August 12, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court applied that standard in Commonwealth v. Solis and Commonwealth v. Diaz, upholding delays of 109 and 123 days on a specific combination of factors that included probable cause, the independent evidentiary value of the device, the seriousness of the alleged offenses, and a reduced possessory interest. The phone seizure and warrant delay analysis covers those decisions and what a defense challenge to a delay now has to address.
For a person whose phone was taken, the delay begins on the seizure date. The Commonwealth must explain the delay, and a request for return of the device documents the possessory interest that the court weighs when deciding whether the delay was reasonable.
Exigent Circumstances
Police sometimes search a device without a warrant and later claim an emergency justified it. That claim is fact-specific and it is not foreclosed by the fact that the device is already in police hands.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), held that police generally may not search digital information on a phone seized incident to arrest without a warrant. The same opinion preserved exigency as a case-specific exception. The Court wrote that if “the police are truly confronted with a ‘now or never’ situation,” for example circumstances suggesting that a phone will be the target of an imminent remote-wipe attempt, “they may be able to rely on exigent circumstances to search the phone immediately.”
The Court also identified less intrusive responses available to police, including disabling a phone’s locking mechanism to secure the scene and responding in a targeted way to a specific wiping threat. That affects the defense analysis. Where officers had a practical alternative to an immediate search and did not use it, the claimed emergency is weaker. Where the Commonwealth offers only a general statement that digital evidence can be deleted, without facts showing an actual and immediate threat to this device, the claim should be tested at an evidentiary hearing.
The defense investigates what the officers knew at the moment of the search, what they did with the device before and after, and whether the department had radio-isolating equipment available.
The Search Warrant: Probable Cause and Particularity
A search of a device ordinarily requires a warrant supported by probable cause and describing with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Riley established the rule for phones. Commonwealth v. Mauricio, 477 Mass. 588 (2017), applied it to other digital devices.
Three requirements govern the application.
Nexus. The affidavit must connect this device to this offense. White holds that ownership plus a charge is not enough. Commonwealth v. Holley, 478 Mass. 508 (2017), illustrates the kind of particularized information that does establish nexus, including facts showing that participants used phones in connection with the offense.
Particularity. The warrant must state what may be searched and seized. A warrant that authorizes examination of an entire device without limitation invites a challenge.
Truthfulness. Where the defense makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly or recklessly included a false statement, or omitted material information, the defendant may seek an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
Scope and Execution of the Search
A valid warrant is a limit as well as a permission. Two limits recur.
Subject matter. In Commonwealth v. Dorelas, 473 Mass. 496 (2016), the Court addressed which areas of a phone a warrant for particular communications permitted examiners to open. The question in any case is whether the file type and location searched were within the categories the warrant described.
Time. A device-warrant affidavit must connect the requested categories of information and date range to the alleged offense. Commonwealth v. Snow, 486 Mass. 582 (2021), addresses nexus and staleness in a digital-warrant application.
Execution is also litigable. The Commonwealth typically extracts the device with forensic software that produces a complete image, then reviews the extraction. The defense examines whether the examiner searched categories the warrant did not authorize, whether the review extended beyond the authorized period, and what search protocol, if any, the warrant imposed.
Consent
Voluntary consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving that the person consented voluntarily under the totality of the circumstances.
Three questions arise.
Voluntariness. Whether the person understood a refusal was possible, whether officers made statements suggesting a search would occur regardless, the number of officers present, the length of the encounter, and whether the person was in custody all bear on voluntariness.
Scope. A person who agrees to let an officer look at one text thread has not authorized a full forensic extraction. What the person agreed to, and what the officers then did, are separate facts.
Authority. A person who shares a device or an account may be able to consent to a search of areas over which that person has common authority. Whether the consenting person had authority over the particular device, account, folder, or files searched is a factual question the defense should develop rather than concede.
A person asked for consent may refuse. See your right to remain silent.
Passcodes and Compelled Access
Voluntarily telling an officer a passcode and being ordered by a judge to enter one are different events with different rules.
Voluntary disclosure. A person who voluntarily gives police a passcode may allow them to access the device, but the scope of any consent remains a separate question. The defense may challenge both the voluntariness of the disclosure and whether the subsequent search exceeded what the person authorized.
Compelled entry. The Commonwealth may move for an order compelling a defendant to enter a passcode. Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 468 Mass. 512 (2014), held that the act of entering a decryption key is testimonial, and that compulsion is permissible only where the act communicates nothing the Commonwealth does not already know. In Commonwealth v. Jones, 481 Mass. 540 (2019), the Court held that Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knows the password before the foregone conclusion exception applies. Jones also holds that the Commonwealth must prove knowledge of the password, not ownership or exclusive control of the device, and that evidence other people used the device does not by itself defeat the motion.
Statements about the passcode. Where police obtained a passcode through custodial questioning without the required warnings, or after the person asked for counsel, the defense examines whether the passcode and what followed from it should be suppressed. That analysis depends on the circumstances of the questioning and the relationship between the violation and the evidence.
Further reading: refusing to give police an iPhone passcode in Massachusetts.
Cloud Accounts, Provider Records, and Location Data
Much of what looks like phone evidence is held by a company rather than on the device.
Provider content and subscriber records. Investigators may obtain email, messaging, social media, and cloud-storage records from providers under the federal Stored Communications Act and related legal process. Different requirements govern subscriber information, transactional records, and stored content. Defense counsel should obtain the legal process, the provider’s return, and the dates covered.
Historical location data. Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014), held that obtaining historical cell-site location information is a search under Article 14 requiring a warrant. The Supreme Court adopted the same rule nationally in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018). Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (2015), held that obtaining no more than six hours of historical cell-site location information does not require a search warrant under Article 14.
Real-time location. Commonwealth v. Almonor, 482 Mass. 35 (2019), held that causing a phone to reveal its real-time location is a search requiring a warrant.
Tower dumps and bulk techniques. Commonwealth v. Perry, 489 Mass. 436 (2022), addressed a tower dump as a search affecting every person whose data was collected, and addressed the protocols required to protect uninvolved people. Related decisions govern automatic license plate readers, Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 484 Mass. 493 (2020), and long-term pole camera surveillance, Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020).
Messages on Someone Else’s Phone
A person who sent a message frequently wants to suppress it when police find it on the recipient’s device. In Commonwealth v. Delgado-Rivera, 487 Mass. 551 (2021), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the sender had no reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages he sent that were stored on a phone belonging to and possessed by another person, under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 alike. The Court reasoned that once delivered, the recipient controls whether to share the message.
The Court expressly reserved the question of messages sent through encrypted or ephemeral messaging applications. Where the communications at issue were sent through such an application, the reserved question is open and worth briefing.
Border and Other Special Settings
The border. In Alasaad v. Wolf, 988 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2021), the First Circuit held that border searches of electronic devices require neither a warrant nor probable cause, that basic searches may be conducted without reasonable suspicion, and that such searches may look for evidence of a border-related crime rather than contraband alone. The opinion described agency policies that required reasonable suspicion for advanced searches using external equipment to review or copy a device’s contents. The court also held that officers may detain a device for a reasonable period and declined to impose a fixed time limit.
Campuses. A student may face a university investigation under the school’s disciplinary policy while the criminal case proceeds separately. The school’s authority to obtain or inspect a device depends on the institution, its policy, and the circumstances of the search. See student criminal defense.
Probation and pretrial conditions. A person subject to a search condition may face a different analysis, and the terms of the condition matter.
Booking Inventories and Property Held for Safekeeping
After an arrest, the booking officer removes what the person carries, records it, and stores it. A phone goes into the property record with wallets, keys, and everything else. That process is an inventory, not an investigative search, and Article 14 permits it only when officers follow the department’s standard written inventory procedure. Its purposes are limited to safeguarding the property, protecting the department against claims of loss or theft, and keeping weapons and contraband out of the holding area. The person ordinarily receives an itemized receipt under the same written procedure, and the booking property record documents the date the device entered police custody, the date from which a court measures any later delay in applying for a warrant.
The booking desk is not the only place an inventory happens. Officers who impound a car may record its contents at the scene while the tow truck is on the way, and a phone found in the car is listed the same way. Commonwealth v. Torres, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 51 (2014), upheld a roadside inventory conducted under the department’s written policy before the vehicle was towed. The same limits apply at the roadside as at the station: officers may list and secure a device, and may not examine its contents without a warrant.
Booking staff may hold a phone. They may not open it. In Commonwealth v. Mauricio, 477 Mass. 588 (2017), an officer suspected that a digital camera taken from an arrestee’s backpack was stolen, powered it on, and looked through the stored images to identify the owner. The Supreme Judicial Court suppressed the images because the examination was investigatory, and an inventory is not an occasion to look for information. Recording the make, model, and condition of a device serves an inventory purpose. Activating the device to view its contents does not.
The same limit applies to closer inspection of anything taken at booking. In Commonwealth v. White, 469 Mass. 96 (2014), an officer ran the number imprinted on pills that had been seized in an inventory through an identification website. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the investigative use of the pills transformed a lawful inventory seizure into an unlawful investigatory search, and that a search warrant was required to examine them for investigative purposes. An officer conducting an inventory may note what is obvious from the outside of an item, and may not study it to extract information that serves no inventory purpose. For a phone, the distinction is concrete: an officer may list the device and describe its visible condition, and may not activate the screen, enter a passcode, or open files.
An inventoried item becomes evidence in one of two lawful ways. If something is openly incriminating on sight while officers follow the written routine, they may seize it on that basis, because its incriminating character is immediately apparent without further examination. A phone almost never meets that description, so the Commonwealth needs the ordinary tools: probable cause connecting the device to an offense, and a search warrant for its contents. M.G.L. c. 276, § 1 confines a search incident to arrest to seizing evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made and removing weapons, and property seized in violation of that limitation is not admissible in evidence. An inventory does not enlarge that authority. When police conclude during booking that a phone may hold evidence, the lawful course is to continue holding the device and apply for a warrant, and the delay principles discussed above then govern how long they may hold it before doing so.
Deleting Material During an Investigation
A person who learns that police have an interest in a phone should not delete messages, photographs, or accounts. Deletion can support a separate charge of intimidation of a witness under M.G.L. c. 268, § 13B, which covers conduct directed at interfering with a criminal investigation or proceeding, and it can support an argument of consciousness of guilt in the underlying case. A forensic examination may recover deleted material or identify evidence of deletion.
See intimidation of a witness in Massachusetts and the witness intimidation FAQs.
Suppression and Other Remedies
The defense may move to suppress evidence obtained through an unlawful seizure, an unreasonable period of retention, a defective warrant, or a search that exceeded the warrant. Whether a court also excludes derivative evidence depends on its connection to the violation and any Commonwealth claim of independent source, inevitable discovery, or attenuation.
Depending on the procedural stage and the continuing investigation, counsel may also seek return of the device, limits on any further search, or exclusion of a particular category of data. If suppression leaves the Commonwealth without admissible evidence sufficient to prove the charge, the prosecution may be unable to proceed.
Whether a suppression ruling ends a prosecution depends on what other admissible evidence exists. See how criminal cases get dismissed in Massachusetts.
The Records Counsel Should Obtain
In a case involving a seized device, counsel should obtain and organize the records that establish when police took the device, how long they held it, what authority permitted the search, and what the examiner reviewed:
- The police reports describing the seizure, including the time and circumstances.
- The property receipt and evidence log showing the chain of custody and the dates of transfer.
- The search warrant, the supporting affidavit, and the return.
- Any application for an extension or a second warrant.
- The complete forensic extraction report, not a selected excerpt.
- The examiner’s notes, the software and version used, and the search terms or filters applied.
- Provider process and returns, including preservation letters, subpoenas, court orders, and warrants.
- Any consent form, and any recording of the encounter in which consent was given.
- Body-worn camera and cruiser video of the seizure.
- Any communication between the department and the provider or the forensic vendor.
Where the Commonwealth extracted a device, defense counsel should request the complete extraction, the examiner’s report and notes, and the software and search terms used. The defense may also retain an independent examiner. The Massachusetts text message and phone evidence FAQs answer the questions that arise most often.
Where Digital Evidence Commonly Appears
Phone and account evidence commonly appears in several categories of case:
- Domestic violence prosecutions, where messages between the parties may form a substantial part of the Commonwealth’s evidence;
- 209A abuse prevention and 258E harassment prevention proceedings, where the phone may contain evidence of the alleged contact;
- Cases against students, where a campus proceeding may run alongside the criminal case;
- Cases against licensed professionals, where a charge or disposition may trigger a profession-specific disclosure or disciplinary rule;
- Cases involving noncitizens, where a charge or proposed disposition may have an immigration consequence.
What to Do If Police Have Your Device
State that you do not consent to a search. Do not provide a passcode. Ask whether you are free to leave. Ask for a property receipt. Do not delete anything. Write down the date, time, location, and the names and badge numbers of the officers involved. Contact counsel promptly so the seizure date, any request for return of the device, and the date police applied for a warrant can be documented.
Serpa Law Office can be reached at 617.936.0201 for a free and confidential consultation. The Boston office is at 20 Park Plaza #400A. The Quincy Office is at 500 Victory Road, Suite 400A.
Related Pages
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
