TX14: Def’s furtive movements with cell phone can justify exigency to seize it

Defendant’s furtive movements supported exigency that he could attempt to erase things on his cell phone thus justifying its warrantless seizure. Igboji v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1021 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Feb. 20, 2025) (unpublished), on remand from 607 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) 2020), rev’d 666 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).

Defendant’s statement he disclaimed an interest in the car he was walking away from can be used to show his standing even though the government is barred from using it at trial. United States v. Cook, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31024 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2025).*

17 law enforcement officers and support personnel showed up to execute a child pornography warrant. Defendant and his family were removed from the house and put in police cars and told they were not under arrest. Still, it was custodial when defendant was questioned in the police car he couldn’t get out of. United States v. Galasso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31022 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Custody, Emergency / exigency, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.