Based on a female airman’s complaint, AFOSI developed information that defendant had sex with her when she was too intoxicated to consent. She believed that he had pictures on his cell phone. OSI was seeking a search authorization for his phone when they told him they had one and where was it. He said it was in his car near his work assignment. While the seizure of the cell phone preceded the search authorization, it was inevitable that they were getting authorization to seize and then search the phone, so the exclusionary rule would not be applied. Pictures on the phone helped convict him and provided 404(b) evidence of others. United States v. Mancini, 2016 CCA LEXIS 660 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 7, 2016).
In a rape case on tribal lands, a co-occupant of defendant’s home consented to police entry to investigate that led to the taking of photographs. Defendant had also consented to taking DNA which linked him to the alleged sexual assault. United States v. Brave Bird, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154912 (D.S.D. Sept. 15, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154742 (D.S.D. Nov. 8, 2016).*