UT: Obtaining phone records by subpoena did not violate Third or Fourth Amendment

Defendant was charged with harassing communications, and his phone records were obtained for the prosecution. This did not violate the Third and Fourth Amendments under Smith v. Maryland. American Fork City v. Smith, 2011 UT App 203, 258 P.3d 634, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 69 (2011).* [This is the first time I’ve seen the Third Amendment cited in a long time. The defendant was, of course, pro se.]

Police attempted to pull over defendant, but he refused to stop. He finally did and bailed from the car running down an alley with the police on his heels. They finally catch him and he’s got the magazine to a gun. Only then was he seized under Hodari D., and the magazine was found by a valid search incident. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12996 (3d Cir. June 23, 2011) (unpublished).*

Crediting the officers’ testimony, their encounter with the defendant was consensual. They asked to talk to him, and he agreed. United States v. Falls, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67386 (M.D. Tenn. June 22, 2011).*

The district court’s conclusions about how the probation officer was involved in the search was supported by the record, so the search was valid. United States v. Hadnot, 2439 Fed. Appx. 654 (9th Cir. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.