TN: Def opened door to admit suppressed cell phone evidence by asking the one question too many

Defendant successfully kept out cell phone tracking records for lack of probable cause. “However, during trial, based on defense counsel’s question of whether there was any ‘physical evidence’ connecting Defendant to the case, the trial court ruled that Defendant opened the door, and allowed the admission of the cell site location data.” Admitting it was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Griffin, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 398 (Sep. 9, 2024).

Defendant’s interview with the police while a search warrant was being executed at this house was not “police dominated.” He wasn’t arrested when it was done. United States v. Hollis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162756 (D. Minn. July 26, 2024).*

Probable cause was shown for defendant’s cell phone at his house: “The affidavit in support of the search warrant sufficiently establishes probable cause that evidence of a crime will be found in the apartment to be searched. Phone records and surveillance establish that Defendant’s phone and vehicle were in the vicinity of the murder immediately after the murder occurred. Records and surveillance then establish Williams and Defendant met shortly thereafter and then Williams discarded items taken from Armstead. Several items from the murder were still missing, including the murder weapon. The logical conclusion is that Defendant may still be in possession of those items, and those items could be found at his residence.” United States v. Lindsey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162747 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 22, 2024).*