Email or Call (215) 564-0644

    Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Discusses PA Supreme Court Decision – Law Enforcement Needs to Obtain a Warrant to Search a Cell Phone

    Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that authorities need to get a warrant in order to obtain information from a cell phone.  This case will be discussed in detail below.

    Facts of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Fulton

    On June 15, 2010, Michael Toll (victim) called 911 to report that he had been shot.  The police responded to the call and found Toll in a car near the intersection of 56th Street and Florence Avenue in Philadelphia.  When the police arrived, Toll was holding a cell phone in his hand and told the police that a person named “Jeff” shot him and then fled the scene.  Toll was taken to a hospital to treat his wounds, but died 2 days later.

    The phone Toll was holding was recovered by the police. The call log in Toll’s cell phone showed that an hour before the shooting, Toll had several brief calls with an individual listed as “Jeff” on Toll’s phone.  The police tried to discern the person associated with the number, but found that it was a prepaid phone with no subscriber information.

    On the day that Toll died, the police arrested I. Dean Fulton after receiving a call about drug activity and a man with a gun.  The police seized a cell phone from Fulton at the time of his arrest.

    Fulton’s phone was later transferred to the Homicide Division of the Philadelphia Police as part of the murder investigation regarding Toll’s death.  After receiving the phone, the lead detective powered on the phone and searched the phone menu to discern the phone number of the cell phone.  It was determined that Fulton’s phone was the number assigned to “Jeff” in Toll’s cell phone.  The detective left the phone on and then monitored incoming calls and texts.

    The next day, the detective answered an incoming call and identified himself as a detective investigating a homicide and requested the caller to meet him.  The caller, Heather Warrington, agreed and met the detective.  She told the detective that the owner of the phone was “Lil Jeff” and that she bought heroin from him on a regular basis.  The detective showed Warrington a picture of Fulton, and she identified the picture by writing “Jeff” on the picture.

    Fulton Files Motion to Suppress

    About 4 months after the shooting, Fulton was charged with Toll’s murder.  Fulton filed a motion to suppress evidence and challenged the seizure of his phone and search of his cell phone without a warrant.  The trial court denied both motions.  With regard to the search of the phone, the trial court held that powering up the cell phone to determine its number did not require a search warrant “as this inquiry represented a minimally invasive search. No further efforts were made to recover information from the subject phones at the time[, and Fulton] had no reasonable expectation of privacy in incoming phone calls received…Therefore, his rights were not violated when the detective answered the incoming phone call.”  Fulton was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 15 to 30 years in prison for third-degree murder.

    Fulton appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court arguing that the warrantless searches of his phone required suppression of all evidence obtained by the search.  Fulton’s appeal was denied.  Fulton then appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

    Related: Pennsylvania Criminal Defense Lawyer Discusses Cell Phones and Search Warrants

    PA Supreme Court Decision

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on a U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Riley v. California, a 2014 case where the Court held that a modern cell phone contains “vast” personal data, and hence requiring a search warrant.  Therefore, the PA Supreme Court held that the rule created by Riley is “exceedingly simple: if a member of law enforcement wishes to obtain information from a cell phone, get a warrant.”  The court further stated that the failure to get a warrant for Fulton’s phone was a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Turning on, as well as digging into a cell phone to obtain its number, constituted a search that required a warrant.

    The court then addressed the issue of suppression of evidence.  The court held that any evidence obtained in the unlawful search could not be used in any respect. Since the search of Fulton’s phone was illegal, all evidence that resulted from the search constituted fruit of the poisonous tree and therefore should have been suppressed.


    David S. Nenner

    "Top Rated Criminal Defense Lawyer"

    MURDER, Att. Murder CHARGES – Negotiated Significantly Lower prison sentence (Feb. 2022, PHILA)

    Mr. Anderson faced murder and attempted murder charges after an incident in Northeast Philadelphia involving the shooting death of Anderson’s sister’s boyfriend and the boyfriend’s roommate who was shot 5 times and survived. The decedent had previously beaten the...


    The Commonwealth alleged that Mr. Shelton shot and seriously injured a male in a bar in North Philadelphia called Circles. There was video of the shooting which happened outside the bar. However, Mr. Nenner presented witnesses who testified that the person in the bar...


    Mr. Nenner's client was charged with multiple crimes (murder, conspiracy, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.) after a shooting death occurred at a gambling house in North Philadelphia. At trial, Mr. Nenner successfully presented a self-defense argument and convinced...


    Mr. Nenner’s client was charged with murder and gun charges in Philadelphia. The client was accused of shooting and killing another male on Arch Street near the 5600 block of Ithan Street in Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty after deliberating...

    Drug Possession Case – Motion to Suppress Granted

    Mr. Nenner presented evidence that to show that the traffic stop was a pretextual stop. The officer had no reason to pull the car over. The judge agreed and suppressed the evidence. As a result, the prosecution withdrew the charges.

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – Possession of a Controlled Substance

    In most criminal drug cases in Philadelphia, there are two common charges or offenses: Possession of a Controlled Substance and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. In addition to these drug charges, there are other drug related charges, such...

    Drug Charges in Philadelphia PA State Court – What is “Possession”

    Page last reviewed and updated: October 20, 2019 One of the most common types of criminal state (PA) cases in Philadelphia is possession of drugs. Possession of a Controlled Substance (PCS) and Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (PWID) often...

    Pennsylvania Second Degree Murder (AKA: Felony Murder) Law

    Philadelphia criminal lawyer David S. Nenner discusses the current status of second degree murder law in Pennsylvania. This is also known as the felony murder rule. Get info about PA court decisions and the agency theory. Not every case of death during the commission of a felony will result in a second degree murder conviction in PA.

    Philadelphia Murder Cases – Police Investigation Tactics

    Questioning Police Officer Tactics in Philadelphia Murder Cases Within the last 10 years, there have been several murder Philadelphia criminal cases in which the accused individuals were acquitted of the crimes. In these cases, the individuals spent months, if not...

    Murder Charges in Pennsylvania – Murder Law in Pennsylvania

    An explanation of Pennsylvania murder laws including Section 2502. What is murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree and murder in the third degree. Get a summary of the definitions under Pennsylvania criminal law.