OH9: One day delay in getting cell phone SW after exigent based seizure not unreasonable

Police seized defendant’s phone because of suspected child pornography on it. The warrant to search the phone was not issued until the following day. Defendant cites no authority that a one day delay was unreasonable. State v. Welch, 2015-Ohio-284, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 243 (9th Dist. January 28, 2015).

Defendant’s consent was voluntary. This case is just like Drayton. United States v. Valdez-Perea, 14-1318 (10th Cir. January 27, 2015).*

Temporal proximity of request for consent from unlawful seizure of backpack was too close, and the state’s argument essentially overlooks the illegal seizure. Suppressed. State v. Young, 268 Ore. App. 688, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 86 (January 28, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Cell phones, Consent, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.