NY3: “Common sense” that a drug dealer might have evidence on his cell phone isn’t PC

Just because defendant was a suspected drug dealer, there wasn’t probable cause for searching his cell phone. “While [officer] Bruno recounted that there was a quantity of drugs found in the motel room, along with the two phones, he did not explain why the phones likely contained evidence of a crime. Although common sense and experience might suggest that cell phones found in the same room as a quantity of drugs could potentially contain evidence related to the sale of those drugs, ‘common sense alone does not establish probable cause to search a person’s cell phone.’” People v. Poulos, 2024 NY Slip Op 06239, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6627 (3d Dept. Dec. 12, 2024).

Plaintiff was validly stopped for walking on the wrong side of the road, and the situation devolved into an excessive force claim for which the officers get qualified immunity. Martinez v. City of Rosenberg, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31477 (5th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024).*

2254 petitioner’s Fourth Amendment habeas claim is barred by Stone. Eisenmann v. Thornell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224260 (D. Ariz. Dec. 10, 2024).*

The 911 tip here was corroborated by officers when they arrived. That was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Flournah, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224459 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.