E.D.Ky.: Disclaiming ownership of a cell phone was a waiver of “standing” to challenge its seizure

“In this case, when viewing the collective knowledge available to the police, the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The same justification that supported the stop supports the temporary seizure of Ross’ cell phone. Police then kept Ross’ phone because he disclaimed ownership, which also defeats his standing to challenge its continued seizure.” United States v. Ross, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36314 (E.D. Ky. April 4, 2011).*

Defendant’s girlfriend was the CI who called the police to say that he was carrying drugs in a bag in his car. When the car was stopped, there was the bag. A dog alert to the car gave probable cause to search. United States v. Ned, 637 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2011).*

Police were called to a house because a neighbor thought there was a home invasion. Instead, it was a houseguest leaving, and the police refused to leave the house once it was apparent there was no crime and they allegedly assaulted one of the house owners. A factual dispute about what happened deprives the officers of summary judgment and qualified immunity. Huckaby v. Priest, 636 F.3d 211, 2011 FED App. 0082P (6th Cir. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.