Seo v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
148 N.E.3d 952 (2020)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Katelin Seo (defendant) contacted the local sheriff’s department and claimed D.S. had raped her. Seo told Detective Bill Inglis that her iPhone contained relevant communications between her and D.S., so Seo consented to officers completing a forensic download of the phone. Based on the evidence in the forensic download and Detective Inglis’s conversations with Seo, no charges were pressed against D.S. Instead, D.S. informed Detective Inglis that Seo had stalked and harassed him. D.S. had first been contacted by Seo from the phone number associated with her iPhone, but he then began receiving up to 30 calls and texts daily from different, unassigned numbers. Detective Inglis investigated D.S.’s claims and, based on the substance of the contact, believed Seo was placing the calls and texts using an app or program to disguise her number. Based on Detective Inglis’s investigation, the state of Indiana (plaintiff) charged Seo with more than 19 offenses and issued an arrest warrant. When Seo was arrested, Detective Inglis took possession of her locked iPhone. Seo refused to provide officers with the password to unlock the phone. In response, Detective Inglis obtained a search warrant that authorized a forensic download of Seo’s phone so law enforcement could search for incriminating evidence. Detective Inglis obtained another search warrant that compelled Seo to unlock the phone or otherwise be subject to the contempt powers of the court. Seo refused to unlock the phone, and the state moved to hold her in contempt. Seo argued to the trial court that forcing her to unlock the phone would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court disagreed and held Seo in contempt. Seo appealed, and the trial court stayed the contempt order. Seo entered into a plea agreement while her appeal was pending and pleaded guilty to stalking. The 18 other charges were dismissed, but the contempt citation remained in place.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rush, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
