D.Ore.: Search incident of cell phone without warrant unjustified outside of drug cases, assuming it would be valid there

Defendant was arrested for sex trafficking with minors. His cell phone was seized incident to his arrest from his car. The search of the cell phone could not be sustained under inventory, the automobile exception, exigent circumstances, or plain view. Granted, warrantless searches have been sustained in cases involving drug crimes, but this isn’t. United States v. Davis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38319 (D. Ore. April 7, 2011).

The video of the dog sniff supported the officer’s testimony that the dog alerted. Defendant’s expert said that it didn’t. The video does not contradict the claim that there were “handler cues.” United States v. Olivares-Rodriguez, 415 Fed. Appx. 734 (8th Cir. 2011) (unpublished), affg 729 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Iowa 2010).*

The CI was corroborated. His information about seeing a gun in defendant’s house “within the last month” was not stale because guns are kept and not quickly transferred or used up. United States v. Donald, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38255 (E.D. Ky. April 6, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.