OR: REP in cell phone lost when it was loaned to another

Defendant waived any reasonable expectation of privacy in this smartphone by loaning it to another [even under Oregon’s more stringent abandonment standards]. Here, it was completely out of his control because he loaned it to a young woman, and her mother found it in her room. State v. Zweygartt, 337 Or. App. 234 (Jan. 2, 2025). [Private search? Abandonment? Consent? If consent, no warrant needed? It was argued this was a bailment. That argument would have had weight if there were express or even implied conditions on the loan, like handing it over just to make a phone call.]

Defendant’s confession to a crisis hotline he was interested in young boys again and might act on those urges supported the search warrant for his stuff that produced child pornography. United States v. Zema, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32934 (3d Cir. Dec. 31, 2024).*

On a certified question from the U.S. District Court in Maryland, the question was whether “reasonable grounds” for an Extreme Risk Protective Orders is probable cause or something else. The state’s reframing the question causes them to send it back. Willey v. Brown, 2024 Md. LEXIS 555 (Dec. 30, 2024).*

Defendant’s car was reasonably stopped for not stopping when at a sidewalk when pulling out of a parking lot. United States v. Robertson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 2, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.