E.D.Mich.: Def’s disclaiming ownership of cell phone when seized is a lack of standing, even when he claimed it after it rang

Defendant had no standing to challenge a search of a cell phone found in his car that he said belonged to his girlfriend. “Jackson does not deny that he disclaimed ownership of the phone at the time it was seized. Jackson did not claim the phone as his until he became aware that ‘Ro’ was calling the phone. Jackson lacks standing to challenge the seizure of the phone.” Defendant consented to seizure and search of another phone knowing that the search would take a couple of days, which it did. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81132 (E.D. Mich. May 15, 2018).

Three months in a child porn case wasn’t stale “under the unique facts” here [which really doesn’t matter]. As to defendant’s Franks claim, “the Court cannot possibly find that probable cause would be lacking in the affidavit if any of the above-specified omitted facts had been included. Although they may be facts of interest to Defendant, they are not facts material to a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Findley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82605 (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.