Three adults worked to get access to defendant’s cell phone because he was sexting a minor. “Moreover, even assuming solely for the sake of argument that Dustin Clark had wrongfully taken Minor A’s phone from Defendant Walsh and Deputy Bennett knew it, Dustin Clark’s status as a private actor in taking Minor A’s phone, whether ‘innocent or deliberate … reasonable or unreasonable,’ does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Even if, Deputy Bennett knew Dustin Clark had previously improperly taken Minor A’s phone from Defendant Walsh at the time Dustin Clark showed him the phone, that does not mean Deputy Bennett acquiesced before hand in the intrusive conduct by Dustin Clark.” [Besides, he doesn’t have standing in the minor’s cell phone. United States v. Walsh, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225094 (D. Minn. Dec. 6, 2019),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7960 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2020).*
Fourth Amendment claims can’t be a basis of habeas in California. In re Favor, 2020 Cal. LEXIS 236 (Jan. 2, 2020).