KY: Cell phone was “pinged” because of missing kids but they were found; def’s location to arrest not suppressed

Defendant’s children were missing and his wife was murdered, and he was a suspect. Police got an exigent circumstances “ping” authority for 48 hours on his phone under the SCA. 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b-c). The phone was off and the children were located at their grandmother’s house. The ping request was still effective, and defendant turned his phone on the next day and it was used to locate and arrest him. It was not used to seize the phone. Therefore, even if the ping request went too long, his arrest was not something to suppress. His vehicle was validly seized under the automobile exception, and the phone was in it. The police obtained a search warrant for the vehicle and its contents, including the phone. The warrant was valid. Hedgepath v. Commonwealth, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 436 (September 18, 2014).

“In support of his argument, Parker offers a very thorough and intriguing analysis of the evolution of Kentucky’s search and seizure jurisprudence. However, our decision in the present case turns on what the law was on the date of the search and whether the police officer conducting the search was objectively reasonable in his reliance on the law at that time. [¶] The search at issue occurred on January 12, 2009.” Belton controlled then and it was followed in this state. Gant was decided in April 2009. This is what Davis good faith is all about, and it is followed here. Parker v. Commonwealth, 2014 Ky. LEXIS 432 (September 18, 2014).