GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS SEARCH OF PHONE AT RESIDENCE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT
On October 10, 2025, the Court of Appeals of Georgia decided Leopard v. State,[i] in which the court of appeals examined whether evidence from the search of a cell phone should be suppressed. The facts, taken directly from the case, are as follows:
[T]he evidence shows that in March 2018, as part of routine content moderation, a web-based photo-sharing company sent a log of uploads it had flagged as suspected child pornography to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The log included the images of concern, the IP address associated with the uploads, the internet service provider (“ISP”), and the date and time of the uploads. The information was transmitted to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”), which subpoenaed the ISP and obtained the name of the account holder and the physical address associated with the IP address.
The account was registered to Leopard’s wife, and the physical address was their shared home in Henry County. Police obtained a warrant to search at that address for cell phones, computers, and other items that might store electronic images.
In August 2018, at approximately 7:30 a.m., police went to the residence to execute the search warrant. Leopard’s wife was home with their two school-aged children, who were preparing to go to school; Leopard had already left for work. Leopard’s wife identified the electronic devices in the home, including her and the children’s cell phones as well as a computer in the house, and police did a preliminary scan of those devices, finding nothing of concern.
As police were searching the house and devices, Leopard’s wife called him and asked him to return home. Leopard arrived approximately 45 minutes later while police were still at the house. Leopard gave his phone to a detective who gave it to a GBI forensic investigator on the scene, and she did a “preview” of the phone at the house. The preview identified suspected child pornography, including one image that appeared to be one of the original images uploaded to and flagged by the photo-sharing website. A total of 169 images of concern were found on Leopard’s cell phone. Police took custody of Leopard’s phone and invited him to be interviewed at the police station, and he accompanied them in his own vehicle. Leopard speculated to police that one of his sons could have used his phone.
Following a more thorough forensic evaluation of his phone, Leopard was indicted for committing 20 counts of sexual exploitation of children based on possessing 20 images of child pornography. He moved to suppress the images, which motion was denied, and a jury found him guilty on each count. The trial court merged Counts 2 through 19 into Count 1 and sentenced Leopard to serve 20 years in prison. Leopard now appeal.[ii]
Leopard filed a timely appeal regarding the denial of his motion to suppress. He argued that (1) the police improperly recruited his wife to summon him to come home so the police could search his phone, and (2) the search of his phone was illegal because it occurred after the search of the residence pursuant to the warrant was completed.
The court first examined whether the detective instructed Leopard’s wife to tell him to come home so they could search his phone. Leopard argued that the police lacked the authority to order him to return home because they did not have an arrest warrant for him or other authority to require him to return home.
If the police use a private citizen to attempt to circumvent the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, this can result in the evidence obtained being suppressed. Leopard argued that the detective used his wife to circumvent the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, he argued
[T]he State cannot avoid a Fourth Amendment challenge to a search and seizure by asking a private citizen to act on its behalf and seek out evidence. The test is whether the private individual, in light of all the circumstances of the case, must be regarded as having acted as an instrument or agent of the government when he [procured] the evidence.[iii]
In the motion to suppress, Leopard’s wife testified that the detective told her “You need to call him and tell him to come home.”[iv] In contrast, the detective testified as follows:
I would never tell anybody what to do. … I would express certainly that I would like to talk with them … but I don’t direct people to do anything. I don’t have the authority to tell people what to do in those kinds of circumstances. I can’t order… that somebody return to the house . … I don’t direct people to do things or try to manipulate them in that way to be under the impression that they are compelled to do something that they are not.[v]
The trial court found the detective’s testimony credible and indicated there may have been a misunderstanding by the wife.
Since the court found the detective’s testimony to be credible, the court of appeals held that the trial court was authorized to find that Leopard’s wife was not improperly acting as an agent of the police in telling Leopard to return home.
The court then examined whether the search of the residence was complete when Leopard arrived home. Leopard argued that the search of the residence was complete so the search of his phone was outside of the scope of the warrant. As such, he argued that the evidence obtained from his phone should be suppressed.
The court noted that the search warrant
[A]uthorized a search of Leopard’s home, listing him by name as a resident, for any electronic storage devices including computers and cell phones “on the … described person(s) or property.” The warrant authorized police to “search for, seize, and forensically analyze the relevant data” evincing possession of child pornography.[vi]
The court then examined the evidence to determine if the search of the residence was complete before Leopard returned home. Leopard arrived home about 45 minutes after his wife called him. At this time, multiple officers were at the residence, and the forensic investigator was still present and had not fully packed up her equipment. Leopard’s wife testified that scanning the devices in the residence took about an hour. Further, Leopard does not argue that the officers loitered in his residence for “hours or days” after completing the search to await his arrival. Therefore, based on the record before the court, the trial court was authorized to find that the search of Leopard’s phone occurred during the execution of the search warrant and was therefore within the scope of the warrant.
Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
_____________________________________________________________________
[i]A25A0792 (Ga. App. October 10, 2025)
[ii] Id. at 2-5
[iii] Id. at 4 (emphasis added)
[iv] Id. at 5
[v] Id.
[vi] Id. at 7
