N.J. Court: Police Didn't Violate Rights by Watching Suspect Unlock Phone in 2022 Case
What to know
-
A New Jersey appeals court ruled that police did not violate a suspect's rights by observing him enter his phone passcode during booking, determining that it was done voluntarily and without coercion.
-
The judges found that the suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy when unlocking the lawfully seized phone, and they noted that the state could have compelled the passcode under legal exceptions.
-
While the suspect's kidnapping, sexual assault, and drug convictions stand, the man will be resentenced after the court vacated his 60-year term under a recent Supreme Court ruling that requires juries to decide sentencing enhancements.
A New Jersey appeals court says police didn’t violate a man’s rights by watching him enter his phone passcode while in custody — rejecting his claim that it was unconstitutional.
Tyrone K. Ellison, who was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and drug distribution in a 2022 trial, argued that a detective improperly obtained his phone passcode during booking and later used it to access incriminating evidence.
However, the Appellate Division said Ellison voluntarily entered the passcode in front of the officer and wasn’t tricked or forced to do so.
In a published ruling, the judges found that Ellison had no “reasonable expectation of privacy” at that moment, especially since the phone had already been lawfully seized under a search warrant.
They also said that even if the officer hadn’t seen the passcode, the state could have legally compelled Ellison to provide it under established legal exceptions.
The ruling reinforces how courts are applying privacy and self-incrimination protections to smartphones — especially in cases where suspects voluntarily unlock their devices.
While the court upheld Ellison’s convictions, it did order a new sentencing hearing.
His original 60-year sentence was thrown out because a judge — not a jury — decided he qualified for a longer sentence based on his criminal history.
The court ordered a new sentencing hearing, citing a June 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v. United States.
That decision requires juries — not judges — to decide if a defendant’s criminal history justifies a longer sentence.
Ellison will return to court for resentencing, but his convictions remain in place.
_____________
©2025 Advance Local Media LLC.
Visit nj.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.