MI: Search exceeded scope of consent

Defendant had standing to contest seizure of items from his mother’s home because he lived there and could control them and the area searched. His mother’s consent to search for illegal drugs did not admit the items because the officers exceeded the scope of the consent. Plain view did not apply because their incriminating character was not obvious. Defendant’s probationer status did not require only reasonable suspicion because no such probation condition was shown, and officers only had a hunch of a link to crimes. Text messages were fruit of the poisonous tree because the way they were obtained was insufficiently distinguishable from a cell phone’s illegal seizure. People v. Mahdi, 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 1846 (Oct. 11, 2016).

As a guest, defendant had standing inside the house, and only his car parked outside. It was not seized until it was being towed. Search warrants for the cars were issued with probable cause. State v. Preston, 2016 Del. Super. LEXIS 506 (Sept. 27, 2016).*