CA8: In a consent search of a car, picking up cell phone and seeing lit screen wasn’t an unreasonable search

“Did Trooper Rorie’s 20 seconds of questioning and request for consent prolong the stop beyond the time needed to complete the remaining tasks of the traffic stop? We hold that it did not. The brief duration of the inquiry within the reasonable period of the traffic stop’s original purpose did not impermissibly prolong it.” When defendant consented to the officer searching his car, the officer’s picking up his cellphone was not a search of the phone. The screen only lit up, and that did not violate Arizona v. Hicks because of the consent. United States v. Puckett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 14316 (8th Cir. June 11, 2025).

For Rodriguez, “The Court recognizes that traffic stops on Indian reservations inevitably take longer due to the complexities of police power on reservations and the need to alert non-tribal police officers to issue traffic infractions to non-tribal members.” United States v. Severns, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110978 (D. Mont. June 11, 2025).

Because the investigation is still open, the target can’t yet get access to the sealed search warrant affidavit. In re Sealed Search Warrant Application, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108643 (S.D. Tex. June 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Reasonableness, Search, Warrant papers. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.