CA1: Seizure of a cell phone to get a SW was proper; frisk of jacket for weapon was, too

Officers suspected defendant of sex trafficking, and Detroit PD called the Portland ME PD to report he was there, likely with a young girl. He was known to them as a prior sex trafficker. They found him at a hotel and went to the room. After 90 seconds, the door was opened, and officers could smell marijuana. He was briefly questioned, issued a summons for the marijuana, and he was told he could go. They validly frisked his jacket before he left finding a large quantity of money by plain feel, which they seized. They held on to his cell phones because of reasonable suspicion of sex trafficking, and they applied for search warrants for the phones. The searches were all valid. The frisk because of the chance of a weapon; the cell phones with probable cause. United States v. Henry, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11000 (1st Cir. June 17, 2016):

Henry nevertheless suggests that Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), calls for greater caution in allowing the warrantless seizure of a smart phone. Riley’s concerns about the warrantless search of digital data stored within a smart phone are not implicated here, however, because by the time the phones were searched, a warrant had been obtained. It thus appears that the officers did exactly what the Supreme Court suggested they do: seize the phones to prevent destruction of evidence but obtain a warrant before searching the phones. Cf. id. at 2486-87.