MS: Execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get suspect’s CSLI

Defendant’s allegedly committing an execution style murder in public in broad daylight was exigency to get his CSLI at that moment to locate him. Carpenter recognized exigency exceptions. Anderson v. State, 2026 Miss. App. LEXIS 406 (Sep. 15, 2026).

Defendant ran a motel and the police were called about a disturbance, which seemed to be a regular thing there, and defendant was often the instigator. He was ultimately Tazed in what he contended was a private part of the property, his back office and residence. The police were reasonable in all they did, and, as noted at oral argument, what about inevitable discovery? Here, it’s all on the hotel surveillance video, and the police would have gotten it in due course, as they usually did. State v. Trivedi, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 612 (Sep. 16, 2026).*

This 2254 on ineffective assistance of counsel on search claims fails because none of the searches were illegal. It led off with pole camera observation of him removing methamphetamine from under his car, and that let to searching location data. He says it was from an “unlawful investigation,” but it clearly was not. Freeman v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208788 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 15, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Inevitable discovery. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.