NE: SW not needed for cell phone call records

Defendant’s cell phone call records were obtained by subpoena. This is governed by Smith v. Maryland, and not by any of the cases involving search warrants for the contents of cell phones. [Riley not cited because case arose pre-Riley.] Big difference between mere records and phone contents. State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823, 2014 Neb. LEXIS 130 (August 15, 2014).

Police contact with defendant at an amusement park was justified by his attempting to touch young girls and admitting to videotaping them with a camera hidden in his glasses which he said he downloaded to a laptop in his semi-truck. He consented to a search of his computer and the truck, and a lot more electronic media was found. A search warrant was obtained for suspected child pornography but none was found. Instead, defendant was charged with drugs and FIPF. His stop was valid, and his consent was voluntary. State v. Grisham, 2014-Ohio-3558, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3496 (12th Dist. August 18, 2014).*

The appointment of a special constable was valid under state law, so defendant’s DUI arrest was valid. State v. Buckland, 2014 Conn. LEXIS 280 (August 19, 2014).*