{"id":162,"date":"2026-03-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=162"},"modified":"2026-03-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-03-13T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-anderson-calecpa-deceased-suspect-phone-mother-consent-good-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=162","title":{"rendered":"People v. Anderson \u2014 CalECPA does not require suppression of phone evidence when officers reasonably relied on consent from deceased suspect’s mother"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Anderson; People v. Allen<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
6th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-03-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
H051905<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, CalECPA, Penal Code section 1546, consent to search, deceased suspect, authorized possessor, good faith exception, cell phone search<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

A group of armed men robbed Jacob Cabral in the garage of his San Jose home, where Cabral grew marijuana and kept large amounts of cash. After the robbery, neighbors heard gunshots and one of the participants, Tyrone Lampley, was found dead near the home. Police recovered a cell phone from his pocket along with a gun and marijuana.<\/p>\n

An officer notified Lampley’s mother of his death and obtained her consent to search the contents of the phone. About a week later, police extracted data from the phone and discovered text messages implicating Edward Lee Allen, Jr. in the robbery. Those messages led to a warrant for additional records and to evidence implicating Milo William Anderson.<\/p>\n

Anderson and Allen each entered no contest pleas to robbery and burglary respectively, and admitted firearm and prior strike allegations after the trial court denied their motions to suppress the evidence found on Lampley’s phone. They argued the search violated the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA), Penal Code section 1546 et seq., which generally requires a warrant or specific consent of an “authorized possessor” before law enforcement may access electronic device information. They contended that Lampley’s mother was not an authorized possessor of his phone simply by virtue of being his next of kin, and that suppression was required.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments. The court assumed without deciding that Lampley’s mother was not an authorized possessor of the phone within the meaning of CalECPA. Even so, the court held that suppression of the evidence obtained from the phone was not required.<\/p>\n

The court reasoned that even when CalECPA is violated, the statute’s suppression remedy operates within the framework of California search-and-seizure law as constrained by the Truth-in-Evidence provision of the California Constitution. Suppression is generally available only when the violation rises to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation requiring exclusion or the federal exclusionary rule otherwise applies. Critically, the federal good-faith exception applies even when there is later determined to be a violation of a statute or regulation governing law enforcement access to digital evidence.<\/p>\n

Here, officers had an objectively reasonable belief that Lampley’s mother could consent to the search of the phone. She was Lampley’s next of kin, the phone was in his pocket when he died, she identified the phone number as his, and within days of consenting to the search she received Lampley’s vehicle keys and key fob, indicating she was being treated as the appropriate next-of-kin custodian of his property. The officers relied on her consent in good faith. Suppression was not required, and the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress was correct.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n