The Girlfriend, the Sweatshirt, and the Locked Phone
Three days after an armed robbery at a convenience store, a 26-year-old woman walks into the station carrying a gray hooded sweatshirt in a plastic grocery bag and a powered-on cell phone. She says both belong to her boyfriend, with whom she shares an apartment, that 'he told me he did it,' and that she wants him out of her house. Store video shows the robber in a light gray hoodie; the clerk described a tattooed forearm. The woman has not been charged with anything and is not represented. The sweatshirt is slightly damp. The detective wants to submit the sweatshirt for DNA and search the phone, and also wants the woman to view a photo array.
1. Analyze the lawfulness of the detective's possession of the sweatshirt and the phone, and what he should do before examining either.
Read the worked answer
The items were not seized from the apartment - she brought them in. That shifts the question from search to consent and authority.
- Sweatshirt: She has apparent common authority over items in the shared residence, and she handed it over voluntarily. Voluntariness is judged on the totality: no threats, no promises, no custody, and she initiated contact. But she also has a clear motive - she wants him out - and she may be a witness with an interest, possibly a suspect. Get a written consent-to-search form naming the specific items, or consult the DA about a warrant. The sweatshirt is not going anywhere; there is no exigency forcing a shortcut.
- Phone: Different problem entirely. Her authority over a passcode-protected phone that is his personal effect is weak, and the contents of a phone require a warrant - device searches are not covered by a search incident to arrest or by a third party's consent over a shared apartment. Get a warrant for the phone.
- Her statement: 'He told me he did it' is a party admission and is potentially admissible through her testimony. Treat her as a witness first, and evaluate whether her involvement could make her a suspect before you take a formal statement.
Rule of thumb: if the item is in the building and there is no emergency, the warrant costs a phone call and an hour.
2. Describe the correct handling and documentation for the sweatshirt and the phone from this moment forward.
Read the worked answer
Sweatshirt:
- Photograph it as received, in the bag, before removal.
- Handle with gloves, change gloves, and use a clean surface - officer DNA contaminating a garment is a real and recurring problem.
- Because it is damp, air-dry it in a designated drying space before packaging. Plastic traps moisture and promotes mold and degradation; package in paper.
- Seal, initial, date, and time across the seal; log it in the property system; issue a receipt; submit to the lab with a request specifying what to test for and where.
- Collect a known standard from the suspect for comparison when he is located.
Phone:
- Do not power it on if it is off. If it is on, isolate it from the network - Faraday bag or airplane mode - so it cannot be remotely wiped.
- Do not attempt the passcode, do not browse the contents, and do not let anyone else do so. Any peek without a warrant contaminates the later search.
- Document the condition on receipt: battery status, lock screen, any visible notifications, who touched it, and when.
- Send a preservation request to the carrier and the relevant providers so records are not purged on a retention schedule.
Chain of custody is a continuous written record - every transfer, every person, every time. A gap in the log does not automatically exclude evidence, but it hands the defense an argument and a theme.
3. The detective plans to show the woman a photo array. What are the risks and the correct procedure?
Read the worked answer
The risks are specific and serious.
- She has already been exposed to media, possibly the store video, and to whatever is in the phone she handed over. Ask first what she has seen and document it.
- She has a motive to cooperate and may be motivated to implicate him. She could be an accomplice. Do not use her as the only identification in the case.
- She knows his face intimately. An array is not really testing identification of a stranger - it is testing whether she will pick him, which is nearly certain. Her statement should be framed as recognition of a known person, not as an eyewitness identification of a stranger.
Procedure:
- A blinded administrator - someone who does not know which photo is the suspect - if the agency can manage it.
- Sequential presentation per policy; one photo at a time.
- Fillers who match the description - light gray hoodie is not a filler criterion, but age, build, hair, and skin tone are. A suspect who stands out is a bad array.
- An instruction that the person may or may not be present, and that the investigation continues either way.
- Record her confidence statement verbatim, in her own words, immediately after any selection.
- Never show her the sweatshirt or the phone photos before the array, and never suggest which photo to pick.