Case Caption: People of the VI vs. MatthewCase Number: SCT-CRIM-2024-0046Date: 05/28/2026Author: Form Field 40Hodge, Rhys S. Citation: 2026 VI 9Summary: The People of the Virgin Islands, appeal from the Superior Court’s August 26, 2024 order granting the motion of the present appellee, Sharif Matthew, to suppress all cell phone evidence obtained pursuant to a telephonic search warrant. Consistent with our recent holding in People v. Cumberbatch, 2026 VI 7, the Superior Court’s order is affirmed. Because the decision suppressed evidence in a criminal proceeding, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal, under 4 V.I.C. § 33(d)(2). The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that search warrants must be supported by probable cause and must particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In determining whether probable cause exists, a judge must make a practical common-sense decision that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. For a telephonic search warrant to be valid under our laws and rules, the testimony in support of the warrant must be recorded verbatim by an electronic recording device, by a court reporter, or in writing – but here there was no verbatim recording of the testimony by any means at all, and this purported practice clearly contravenes Rule 4-1. While an affidavit is not required to use specific language, the circumstances establishing probable cause must appear in the affidavit supporting the warrant, but here such information is absent from the affidavit. When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack of probable clause, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the subsequently invalidated search warrant. Here, the telephonic warrant was lacking in both particularity and nexus, making any reliance upon it objectively unreasonable. Because the warrant was facially deficient and lacking in particularity, the officers could not have considered it to be valid. Thus, the good faith exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to the seized cell phones. The “plain view” doctrine does not require the officers to have “near certainty” that the items found in plain view were contraband or evidence of a crime and officers only need probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity to seize evidence – but this standard is not met in this instance. Because the incriminating nature of the cell phones seized in this case was not apparent, they were not justifiably seized under the plain view doctrine. Consequently, any evidence obtained directly or indirectly from the cell phones must be suppressed. The Superior Court’s August 26, 2024 order granting Matthew’s motion to suppress all cell phone evidence and evidence acquired from the cell phones obtained pursuant to a telephonic search warrant is therefore affirmed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion