E.D.N.C.: The third-party doctrine is information about records, not content

Third party information: “This type of information is unprotected by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith, 442 U.S. at 742. Courts routinely recognize that under Smith’s logic as applied to these statutes, this type of information constitutes communication records, not content.” United States v. Hart, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24615 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2024).

The translations to Spanish during the stop only show that defendant admitted to understanding what he was being told or asked, not that he consented. The court also finds it significant that defendant was not told he could refuse consent. United States v. Gonzalez-Moreno, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235081 (D. Neb. Dec. 22, 2023).

“Furthermore, when officers did eventually stop Defendant, arrest him and his passenger, and search the passenger’s bag, they had reasonable suspicion that multiple traffic violations had occurred because he had just engaged in a high-speed chase with them during which he fled from the police, went over the speed limit, violated stop signs and traffic lights, drove recklessly, and hit other vehicles with his own vehicle and continued to flee, along with many other traffic violations.” United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24622 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 11, 2024).*

The presence of probable cause dooms plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. Artuso v. Felt, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3178 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Overseizure, Third Party Doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.