TN: Cell phone could be seized with PC and exigency and SW then applied for

Defendant consented to show a video of the victim on his cell phone, and it was immediately obvious that the cell phone had evidence the police needed because the time of the recording contradicted several things the defendant said. They seized the phone without a warrant and then applied for a search warrant to search it. This did not run afoul of Riley. State v. Greenwood, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1060 (November 21, 2014):

Moreover, having determined that the plain view doctrine applied to the video recording, we conclude that the officers, who were lawfully positioned to observe appellant’s telephone pursuant to the consent given to them, were lawfully permitted not only to observe the video but to actually seize the telephone without offending the constitution. See State v. Kenneth Wendland, No. M2009-01150-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL 345846, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 31, 2011) (citing Thomas K. Clancy, The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation 305 (Carolina Academic Press 2008) (“[P]lain view doctrine differs from mere visual inspection from a lawful vantage point in that the officer is also in a lawful position to seize the object without an additional intrusion.”) (emphasis in original)). The warrantless seizure of the telephone did not invalidate the subsequent search warrant. See id. Appellant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Emergency / exigency. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.