ID: Child sex offense witnesses were discovered prior to likely illegal phone search

Defendant was under investigation for various offenses, including sex crimes. His cell phone was seized when he was arrested for burglary. Minor sex offense witnesses were identified by the allegedly illegal search of the phone, and the court doesn’t suppress because their identity was already known before the search. [And the court could more easily have said that “witnesses aren’t suppressed as a result of an alleged illegal search: United States v. Ceccolini (1978).] State v. Davis, 2015 Ida. App. LEXIS 114 (Nov. 4, 2015).

That kidnapping victim supposedly gave contradictory information to the police that was not included in the affidavit for search warrant failed the Franks threshold. There was no offer of proof to overcome the presumption of validity of the warrant. United States v. Felton, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150379 (M.D.Fla. Oct. 27, 2015).*

Defendant was stopped, and the officers could smell raw marijuana coming from the car. A search revealed cultivation supplies. They went to his house for a knock-and-talk and his girlfriend was there, and they could smell raw marijuana when she opened the door. She refused to consent. They did a protective search while one officer applied for a search warrant. There was probable cause for the search, and it is not suppressed. State v. Turner, 2015-Ohio-4612, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4483 (2d Dist. Nov. 6, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.