OH8: Misstating the owner of a cell phone in warrant application was not material when it was seized as part of a burglary conspiracy

A burglar alarm in an industrial area at 1 am brought the police who saw men scattering, and one vehicle leaving. There was reasonable suspicion for stopping the vehicle. The search warrant for a cell phone was proper because it was based on probable cause although it misstated which of the conspirators owned it. That also was negligence at worst and doesn’t justify suppression. State v. Newton, 2019-Ohio-3566, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3651 (8th Dist. Sept. 5, 2019).*

Defendant doesn’t have standing to challenge the search of another person’s car from which cash in the conspiracy was seized. United States v. Ugarte, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150656 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.