OH8: Realtime CSLI was used only to locate def; nothing to suppress

Defendant was called by the police for an interview about a child molestation accusation, and he agreed to meet. He didn’t show. Then the police were concerned maybe he was fleeing and they sought realtime CSLI to locate him. “We find that Carpenter does not apply to Martin’s case because the real-time cell phone information was not used as evidence against Martin, but rather as a means to locate him, after a warrant was issued for Martin’s arrest.” State v. Martin, 2019-Ohio-4463, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4529 (8th Dist. Oct. 31, 2019).

The anticipatory search warrant for defendant’s property was valid despite his new ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence claims. “The claims raised by Joshua in his postconviction motion do not alter the above-described acts and events. And the claims of newly-discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel (whether considered jointly or separately) fail to create a reasonable probability of a different outcome regarding the trial court’s determination of the validity of the search warrants.” Joshua v. State, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 16458 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 30, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.