MA: Cellphone was an “implement” for distribution of drugs that could be seized under a search warrant

During execution of a search warrant, “a cellular telephone was … an ‘implement[ ] … related to the illegal possession … or distribution of cocaine,’” where the affidavit also talked about the use of communication devices, so it could be seized under the warrant. Answering a call that came in just after it was seized was not unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Depina, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 1482 (December 8, 2009).

Just saying “steroids” in an affidavit for a search warrant was not insufficient because state law showed that injectable drugs were controlled. Commonwealth v. Takvorian, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 836, 917 N.E.2d 776 (2009).*

Undercover officers went to a crack addict and asked where they could buy crack, and he told them defendant’s apartment. They all went to the apartment and a crack deal was made, so that was probable cause for a search. The CI was corroborated. State v. Hall, 2009 Ohio 6390, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5337 (2d Dist. December 4, 2009).*

A black padlocked cloth bag removed from the trunk of a car to be inventoried could not be inventory searched under the local policy. However, it was subject to search because the officer could smell marijuana in it. State v. Robinson, 2009 Ohio 6395, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5336 (2d Dist. December 4, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.