D.Ariz.: There is standing in a borrowed cell phone; no justification here for search

Defendant’s denial of ownership of a cell phone in his car was not determinative of his standing to challenge its search. Actually, he was loaned the phone because his was broken, and he was legitimately in possession. The question posed to him (“Do you own the phone?”) did not determine standing. His denial of ownership was thus not abandonment. The warrantless search of the cell phone at the secondary checkpoint area north of Nogales was unreasonable. Neither search incident nor the automobile exception apply because there was no exigency. Inevitable discovery does not apply just because there may be probable cause; some effort at a warrant is required, and here there was apparently no intention of applying for a warrant. United States v. Alonso-Castaneda, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49547 (D. Ariz. April 14, 2015).

Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop where he and a companion were walking in a high crime area, saw the police car, and were nervously looking at it. They ducked into a restaurant, but the officers could see that they weren’t there as patrons–they were hiding out there. If he’d been buying something, the officers wouldn’t have escorted him out. This was reasonable suspicion: “See State v. Barney, 97-777 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98), 708 So.2d 1205, where this Court found that presence in a high crime area, coupled with nervousness, startled behavior, flight or suspicious actions upon the approach of officers, is sufficient to justify an investigatory stop.” State v. Bradstreet, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 728 (La. App. 5 Cir. April 15, 2015).*