D.Minn.: Statement is suppressed, but def’s giving up passcode to cell phone is not

While defendant’s statement is suppressed, his giving up the passcode to his cell phone is not, so the search of the cell phone was by consent. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55965 (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018):

In the present case, as in Patane, the violation of Jackson’s Fifth Amendment right is fully vindicated by the suppression of Jackson’s statements following the invocation of his right to counsel. That Jackson, in that statement, gave the police the passcode to his cell phone, and with it access to the physical evidence on the phone, does not require the suppression of the evidence found on Defendant’s phone. As the Court concludes below, officers had authorization, pursuant to the April 21, 2017, search warrant to seize “cellular telephones, and the numbers, photographs , and videos stored therein,” found at the residence. See ECF No. 43, Ex. 1. While, Jackson’s motion to suppress statements, admissions and answers must be granted to the extent it seeks to suppress any statements made by Jackson during the April 21, 2017, interview, to the extent it seeks to suppress evidence found in Jackson’s cellular phone, it must be denied.