W.D.Mo.: Consent to search car for evidence of “drug activity” implicitly permitted a search of cell phone

Defendant’s consent to search his car could only be understood to be for “drug activity,” and that implicitly permitted a search of his cell phone under that consent. United States v. Gilbert, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124235 (W.D. Mo. September 30, 2011)* [Like the defendant would remotely understand that; another fiction].

Officers came to defendant’s apartment at night on a report he had a gun and asked about it under the public safety exception to Miranda. He said there was a gun inside and told them where it was. The officers were able to ascertain that there were no others in the apartment, so the entry into the apartment to seize the gun was an unreasonable warrantless entry into the home. United States v. Simmons, 661 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2011).*

Defendant’s reliance on Gant in his 2255 was without any basis. United States v. Hamilton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123346 (D. N.J. October 25, 2011).*

The inventory of defendant’s car was clearly within the local PD’s inventory policy. United States v. Crawford, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123973 (S.D. Ohio October 26, 2011).*