E.D.Cal.: No REP in a contraband cell phone in prison

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a contraband cell phone found on him in prison. The contents of the phone were used in a drug distribution indictment. The government got a search warrant for the contents of the phone, apparently because California state law required it for digital seizures from prisoners [not that it would matter in federal court by Virginia v. Moore]. United States v. Bash, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143002 (E.D.Cal. July 28, 2021).

The entry here was reasonable at the time it happened. Caniglia v. Strom and Sanders v. United States were decided after the case was submitted on appeal. Therefore, qualified immunity applies. Boggs v. Pearson, 2021 SD 44, 2021 S.D. LEXIS 85 (July 30, 2021).

“McColley fails to identify a Fourth Amendment violation in this encounter. The initial traffic stop was permissible because Frantz had reasonable suspicion to believe that McColley was violating Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1523, and Frantz’s questioning while checking McColley’s documents in his patrol vehicle did not unreasonably extend the traffic stop. Once the initial stop ended, McColley consented to additional questions and then to the search of his car. As a result, the evidence obtained from this encounter will not be suppressed.” United States v. McColley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143064 (D.Kan. July 30, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Prison and jail searches, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.