PA: Contents of a closed shoebox wasn’t in plain view

The contents of a closed shoebox were not in plain view. Commonwealth v. Herlth, 2025 PA Super 73, 2025 Pa. Super. LEXIS 138 (Mar. 24, 2025).

“In sum, the evidence before the Court shows that the PGPD and the FBI improperly obtained and retained certain electronic evidence from Defendant Owen’s iPhone and iCloud account that exceeds the temporal scope of the February 19, 2020, State Warrant. But the evidence also shows that the Government did not flagrantly disregard the temporal scope of this warrant in connection with its investigation of this matter. And so, the Court will suppress the electronic evidence seized from Defendant Owen’s iPhone and iCloud Data account via the February 19, 2020, State Warrant that pre-dates January 1, 2020.” United States v. D’Haiti, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52042 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2025).*

Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into defendant’s girlfriend’s apartment. Police had probable cause that the defendant had committed a crime and that contraband would be found in the apartment, and there was a risk that evidence could be destroyed while obtaining a warrant. The court also found that the search warrant application established probable cause by stating that the large quantity of fentanyl found on the defendant was packaged consistent with drug sales, and that drug dealers commonly use residences to store drugs. People v. Parrilla, 2025 NY Slip Op 01761 (4th Dept. Mar. 21, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Overbreadth, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.