Former Wife’s Out of Court Statements Admissible Under Residual Hearsay Exception; No Search Warrant Required Under The Facts of this Case to Obtain Records of Cell Phone Call Logs and Cell Tower Locations

State v. Griffin, Minn.S.Ct., 7/31/2013.  A jury convicted Mr. Griffin of a couple counts of first degree murder – drive-by and premeditated.  Mr. Griffin murdered his former wife’s significant other in the course of which Mr. Griffin used his girlfriend’s cell phone for various purposes.  Without benefit of a search warrant the state got the cell phone records for the girlfriend’s phone in order to determine the time and location of these calls.  The state also introduced certain statements that Mr. Griffin’s former wife made to friends of hers shortly before the murder that accused Mr. Griffin of stalking her over her current lover.

Mr. Griffin objected to these two actions.  On the former wife’s out of court statements, the trial court had allowed the state to introduce them under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, Rule 807.  Chief Justice Gildea upheld the trial court’s admission of these statements, concluding that there had been no abuse of discretion in doing so.  The statements were volunteered without suggestive or leading questions, remained consistent both over time and to different people, and were made without motive to lie.  See State v. Robinson, 718 N.W.2d. 525 (Minn. 2006). 

On the cell phone records – which included only the call logs and cell tower locations, and did not include the content of any of them – the chief justice again upheld the trial court’s determination that the state had not needed a search warrant.  The court relied on a similar opinion, State v. Gail, 713 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 2006).  Mr. Griffin was not a subscriber to the phone.  He produced no evidence that he had attempted to conceal anything about the cell phone, and he offered to evidence to support his claim that he had an expectation of privacy in the particular phone records. 

The cell phone records issue may yet be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Fifth Circuit came to the same conclusion as did Chief Justice Gildea, although there was a dissenting vote.  Read about that case here.  The First Circuit, however, ruled last May that a warrant was required.