E.D. Mo.: SI of cell phone contents was lawful

Seizure and search incident of cell phones and their contents from a car with $85,000 hidden in the gas tank were lawful. United States v. Monson-Perez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20575 (E.D. Mo. January 29, 2010):

In United States v. James, 2008 WL 1925032 at *3-9 (E.D.Mo., April 29, 2008) the court held that “because probable cause existed to believe that evidence of a crime would be found in the cell phone call records and address book, the automobile exception allows the search of the cell phone just as it allows a search of other closed containers found in vehicles.” See also United States v. Fierros-Alvarez, 2008 WL 1826188 (D.Kan., April 23, 2008) (automobile exception justified search of cell phone found in vehicle). Therefore, the seizure of the cell phones and the extraction of data from them was legal.

Questions of fact remain on summary judgment for whether plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in an apartment that the landlord was letting them stay in at the end of a leasehold. The defendants failed to show as a matter of law there was no expectation of privacy. The defendants also did not show as a matter of law that the emergency exception applied. Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco, 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010).*

As officer approached the defendant he discarded a gun. That was abandonment in response to lawful police conduct under Hodari D. and waiver of any expectation of privacy. United States v. Hunter, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20804 (N.D. Cal. February 11, 2010).*

Evidence derived from defendant’s allegedly illegal arrest did not make it into the search warrant affidavit, which had plenty of probable cause; an independent source was shown. United States v. Strong, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20851 (D. Minn. February 1, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.