OH6: Consent to search cell phone obtained by telling def it would get his phone back sooner was involuntary

Defendant’s consent to search his phone was merely acquiescing to a claim of lawful authority because it was told if he consented he could get it back faster. State v. Seem, 2022-Ohio-3507, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3314 (6th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022).

Defendant’s plain error 2255 fails. The subjective intent of the officer to stop him isn’t a factor when there was, as here, an objective cause. United States v. Ingram, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178682 (W.D. Okla. Sep. 30, 2022).*

Defendant was driving without a license, and his passenger didn’t have one either. The officer could order impoundment of the car and that means inventory. State v. Matheny, 2022-Ohio-3447, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3295 (5th Dist. Sep. 28, 2022).*

An illegal arrest alone doesn’t state a post-conviction claim in Arkansas. Braud v. State, 2022 Ark. 169, 2022 Ark. LEXIS 234 (Sep. 29, 2022).* (About Arkansas 15 cases say that.)

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Inventory, Pretext. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.