Defendant loaned a cellphone for a drug run had no expectation of privacy in the phone’s call directory

Defendant loaned a cellphone to be used on a drug run trip in a car with a hidden compartment had an expectation of privacy in the cellphone to challenge its seizure, but he did not have an expectation of privacy in the call directory in the phone. The phone was searched twelve hours later. United States v. Fierros-Alavarez, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Kan. 2008):

The government argues the holding in Smith and the later applications of Smith logically extend to the issue presented by the facts of this case so as to preclude an expectation of privacy in the recent call directory as well as the phonebook directory. The defendant’s only rejoinder is that a phone book directory may disclose more information than that revealed in a pen register. The defendant, however, has not shown that the phone book directory in his cellular telephone discloses more than the “addressing information”–the telephone number and the subscriber’s name–on the same numbers appearing in the recent calls directory. See United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d at 509; United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d at 1204. On the record as it stands, the court must conclude that the defendant has not carried his burden of proving a reasonable expectation of privacy in the addressing information retrieved from the recent calls directory and in the names and numbers taken from the phonebook directory. Thus, the court denies the defendant’s motion for lack of standing. For the sake of argument, the court will assume the defendant has proved standing and address the automobile exception to a search warrant.

Consent to retrieve a film canister during an arrest implies consent to open it. King v. State, 6 So. 3d 30 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008).*