D.Minn.: Removing cover from cell phone in jail property room to get FCC ID was reasonable as jail search

Removing the back cover from a cell phone to get its FCC ID number was reasonable where the telephone was in defendant’s property at the jail. He also did not have standing in the search of the car because he was a mere passenger and nothing of his was searched. His duffle bag was moved, but not searched [as in Bond]. United States v. Rodriguez, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3157 (D. Minn. January 10, 2012)*:

Following Rodriguez’s arrest on January 29, 2011, police took and inventoried his property, including the phone. Two days later, following the search of Daniel Rodriguez’s car, a law enforcement agent retrieved Justin Rodriguez’s cell phone from the jail and removed the back cover to obtain the FCC ID number. Because the cell phone was held by police in connection with an undisputedly lawful arrest, Rodriguez had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone. See Lester, 647 F.2d at 874-75 (noting Supreme Court’s approval of warrantless search of an accused’s effects at the stationhouse well after the time of the arrest). The inspection of his phone was therefore proper. See id.

Rodriguez’s objection that removal of the cover from the phone is akin to a closed container search requiring a warrant, see United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1977) (discussing closed containers), would be relevant if the phone were not already in police custody pursuant to a lawful arrest. It is true that the constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures applies regardless of how brief the unlawful intrusion: that the removal of the battery was “brief” would not render an otherwise unlawful search lawful. But the duration of the search is irrelevant here because Rodriguez’s property was already subject to search by virtue of its being held pursuant to a lawful arrest. See Lester, 647 F.2d at 874-75. Because the Court finds the inspection of Rodriguez’s phone to be proper, it follows that the inspection offers no basis on which to invalidate the later-obtained search warrant.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.