LA2: Even though LA doesn’t follow SCOTUS standing rules, def still had to show a privacy interest, and he didn’t have one in his murder victim’s cell phone

Defendant couldn’t challenge the search of his murder victim’s cell phone. While Louisiana doesn’t follow SCOTUS cases on standing, no privacy right of defendant was involved in her phone found at her feet when the police arrived at the crime scene. State v. Farris, 2016 La. App. LEXIS 2261 (La.App. 2 Cir. Dec. 14, 2016).

Officers surveilling a drug deal saw defendant leave in a large Ford pickup with no tailgate. They called ahead for a traffic stop, and he was stopped for speeding, 70 in a 65. Defendant couldn’t produce his insurance papers, and the officer was trying to verify whether defendant lied about being in jail before [to what end in a traffic stop?]. The DL check took seconds. The jail check was longer. In the meantime, three minutes later, a drug dog arrives at the scene and was run around the car. The defendant’s greater than normal nervousness justified the longer detention. “This Court concludes that Deputy Gonzales had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop on Howard’s vehicle and did not unreasonably delay the investigation of the traffic offense. This Court further finds that Deputy Gonzales had reasonable suspicion to detain Howard after the traffic stop until the dog alert.” United States v. Howard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173533 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 14, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.