S.D.W.Va.: Warrantless arrest at door for CSAM didn’t support plain view seizure of cell phone

Officers came to defendant’s house without an arrest or search warrant to arrest him for a CSAM offense. He answered the door in his underwear. The asked about cell phone and saw it and seized it. Payton applies, and the phone is suppressed. There were no exigent circumstances, and the plain view exception can’t be bootstrapped here. United States v. Miller, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212349 (S.D. W. Va. Sep. 18, 2026).

“To be sure, the application presented a close call as to probable cause. But once the state court judge made that call, it was objectively reasonable for the officers to rely on it.” United States v. Mayence, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211698 (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2026).*

“The Court finds a stop occurred but reasonable suspicion existed. The characteristics of the area, proximity to the border, information about the vehicle, usual pattern of local traffic, time of day, and behavior of the vehicle, together with reasonable inferences of an experienced Border Patrol agent, support BPA Brown’s reasonable suspicion that this vehicle had traveled from Phoenix to a pickup area, had picked up illegal aliens, and was traveling back to Phoenix or elsewhere with its passengers.” United States v. Florendo, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212272 (D. Ariz. Aug. 25, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Good faith exception, immigration stops, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.