Murder Defendant Moves to Suppress Evidence of Text Messages on Cellphone
The Fifth District held that the defendant’s postconviction petition did not adequately state a constitutional claim concerning the later examination of data copied from his cell phone.
In People v. Price, 2024 IL App (5th) 220550-U, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. He later filed a postconviction petition arguing, among other things, that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the federal government’s later examination of data copied from his cell phone.
The Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s first-stage dismissal of the postconviction petition. The appellate court did not rule that the underlying cell phone search was constitutional on the merits. Instead, it concluded that the defendant’s postconviction filings did not provide enough factual or legal detail to state the gist of a constitutional claim.
Quick Answer
The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the postconviction petition because the defendant’s filings did not adequately explain how appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue the claimed Fourth Amendment issue. The court emphasized that simply using the words “fourth amendment” without supporting factual details was insufficient to move the petition beyond the first stage of postconviction proceedings.
The decision was filed on April 12, 2024, as a Supreme Court Rule 23 order. It is therefore not precedential except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23.
Background of the Case
On July 22, 2015, Theron Price was charged with three counts of first-degree murder arising from the shooting death of William Newbern III on November 24, 2014. The indictment alleged that Price personally discharged a firearm causing Newbern’s death.
Newbern’s body was discovered on November 25, 2014. Police spoke with residents of the apartment complex where the body was found, including Price.
During an interview with Danville police, Price was advised of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver. He told investigators that he had been in the victim’s apartment the previous night and had argued with him about a speaker. Price said he later left the apartment, drove around, and eventually called 911 from Indiana after becoming lost.
During the interview, police asked Price for permission to search his cell phone. Price provided verbal and written consent. The written consent identified the phone and authorized a search involving text messages, contacts, GPS, call logs, and applications. Police then created a copy of the phone’s data using Cellebrite software.
FBI Later Examined the Copied Cell Phone Data
Later in November 2014, FBI Agent William O’Sullivan examined the copied phone data and initially reviewed only the GPS information.
In September 2018, Agent O’Sullivan performed another examination of the previously copied data and discovered two deleted text messages sent by Price’s brother, Gaddis Price. One message contained instructions concerning the removal of possible evidence, while the second instructed Price to delete the earlier message.
The Deleted Messages
First Message
The message instructed Price to use urine or ammonia and check his clothing for residue.
Second Message
The second message instructed Price to delete the first message after reading it and clean himself.
The Defense Challenged the Cell Phone Evidence
Price’s trial counsel initially filed a motion seeking to suppress the deleted text messages. The defense argued that the later examination of the phone data went beyond the scope of the consent Price had given in 2014.
The defense specifically argued that the FBI’s 2018 examination was not authorized because the original written consent did not specifically state that investigators could examine deleted messages or conduct a later search of the copied digital data. Counsel argued that the deleted messages were located in portions of the data that would not ordinarily be considered the phone’s active text-message files.
The defense also argued that Price’s consent should not have remained effective several years later, particularly because the original consent form did not contain an expiration date.
What the Trial Court Decided
The trial court ultimately denied the suppression argument. The court found that the original consent authorized the authorities to examine the contents of the phone and noted that the consent form referred to text messages without limiting the authorization to a particular date or type of message.
The Deleted Text Messages Were Admitted at Trial
The trial court initially ruled that the deleted messages had not been adequately authenticated for admission. After the State later presented additional evidence, however, the court reconsidered that ruling and concluded that the foundational concerns had been addressed.
The court permitted the deleted messages to be admitted and allowed Gaddis Price to testify. Gaddis acknowledged that he had sent messages to his brother around the relevant time, although he disputed or could not specifically recall the content of the messages during portions of his testimony.
The jury ultimately found Theron Price guilty of first-degree murder and found that he personally discharged the firearm that proximately caused the victim’s death. The trial court later sentenced him to 60 years in prison.
Price directly appealed his conviction and challenged the admission of the deleted text messages, including arguments concerning their foundation, hearsay, and the timing of the trial court’s decision to admit them. The Fourth District Appellate Court rejected those arguments and affirmed his conviction in People v. Price, 2021 IL App (4th) 190043.
Price Later Filed a Postconviction Petition
In July 2022, Price filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Among other allegations, he claimed that his trial and appellate attorneys had been ineffective and referred generally to a possible Fourth Amendment violation.
Under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 725 ILCS 5/122-1, a criminal defendant may pursue collateral relief based on substantial violations of constitutional rights.
Illinois postconviction proceedings generally occur in three stages. At the first stage, the circuit court independently reviews the petition and determines whether it is frivolous or patently without merit. Under 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1, a petition that fails to state the gist of a constitutional claim may be summarily dismissed at this stage.
Three Stages of Postconviction Review
First Stage
The court determines whether the petition is frivolous or patently without merit.
Second Stage
A qualifying petition advances for further proceedings and the State responds.
Third Stage
An evidentiary hearing may be held when the petition survives earlier stages.
The Appellate Court Rejected the Fourth Amendment Claim
In the appeal addressed by People v. Price, 2024 IL App (5th) 220550-U, Price argued that appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the Fourth Amendment issue on direct appeal.
The Fifth District explained that a first-stage postconviction petition does not need to prove the constitutional claim outright. It must, however, contain enough factual detail to present the gist of a constitutional violation. The court held that Price’s filings did not meet that threshold.
The appellate court emphasized that the actual postconviction petition did not contain a developed Fourth Amendment claim. Instead, the reference to the Fourth Amendment appeared in an accompanying handwritten document and did not explain what constitutional violation appellate counsel supposedly should have raised.
The court also noted that the State argued the 2018 examination involved data that had already been copied from Price’s phone in 2014, that the original consent had not been revoked, and that the later examination was therefore not the warrantless search described by Price.
Important Distinction
The 2024 appellate decision did not hold that every later examination of previously copied cell phone data is automatically constitutional. The court’s ruling was narrower: Price’s postconviction petition did not provide enough information to state the gist of a Fourth Amendment or ineffective-assistance claim.
Why the Petition Was Dismissed
The appellate court found two major problems with Price’s postconviction claim. First, the petition itself did not actually contain a developed Fourth Amendment claim. Second, the accompanying document merely used the phrase “fourth amendment” without explaining the factual or legal basis for the alleged violation.
The court acknowledged that pro se filings should be liberally construed. Even so, the court explained that there must be something in the filing that can reasonably be construed as a constitutional claim. Simply using the words “fourth amendment” without supporting details was not enough.
Because Price did not adequately plead the constitutional claim, the Fifth District affirmed the first-stage dismissal of his postconviction petition.
Appellate Result
Year Sentence
Postconviction Dismissal
What People v. Price Means for Illinois Criminal Cases
People v. Price, 2024 IL App (5th) 220550-U demonstrates the importance of presenting a specific factual and legal basis when pursuing postconviction relief. A defendant does not necessarily have to prove the constitutional violation at the first stage, but the petition must contain enough information to present the gist of a constitutional claim.
The case also highlights the complexity of Fourth Amendment issues involving digital evidence. Consent to search a cell phone can raise questions about the scope of the consent, the types of data covered, whether consent was revoked, and whether investigators later examined data that had already been copied from the device.
In Price’s case, however, the Fifth District did not resolve those broader Fourth Amendment questions. The court instead concluded that the postconviction petition failed to adequately present the constitutional issue.
Talk to a Champaign, IL Criminal Defense Attorney Today
Patel Law, P.C. represents Illinois residents who are facing criminal charges and seeking to protect their constitutional rights. If you or a family member is dealing with serious criminal allegations, call our Champaign criminal defense lawyers today to schedule a consultation and discuss your defense options.
Call Patel Law, PC
Learn More About Patel Law, PC
Sources
People v. Price, 2024 IL App (5th) 220550-U
Illinois General Assembly: 725 ILCS 5/122-1 — Post-Conviction Hearing Act
Illinois General Assembly: 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1 — First-Stage Postconviction Proceedings
