TX2: Merely stating there is a REP in a cell phone doesn’t make it a 4A argument

“In one sentence in this section of his brief, Nash also argues that courts have found that a cell phone user has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the user’s phone’s contents. Nash does not challenge the evidence that the text messages were recovered from Remi’s phone with her consent. Because Nash’s brief does not contain any further discussion of privacy rights, we do not read the brief to argue that the messages should have been excluded on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the police obtained the data from Remi’s phone, and he did not raise any such argument in the trial court.” Nash v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6950 n.2 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Aug. 31, 2023) (unpublished).

Going 88 in a 65 was justification for a stop; a search for marijuana was justified by the smell. United States v. Qualls, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154344 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152157 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 29, 2023).*

Plaintiff’s claim against the TSA for an unreasonable strip search because of a menstrual pad setting off the security system is rejected. During the search, the area to the secondary screening area wasn’t properly closed off and private. Mengert v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153981 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Airport searches, Burden of pleading, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.