Defendant\u2019s cell phone was seized during his arrest for possession of ammunition and search with a search warrant. It was reasonable for the officer to believe that the cell phone\u2019s contents might support that arrest. United States v. Hill, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17582 (N.D. Cal. February 10, 2014).* [I don’t get it either except for photos. People take photos of their crimes all the time. That is reasonable to believe on its face. My favorites came off the snitch’s phone the government shared.]<\/p>\n
Officers came to defendant\u2019s rural home to do a knock and talk about methamphetamine, and he met them on the porch with a rifle. They disarmed him and patted him down, feeling a round object in his pocket. Asked what it was he pulled it out, and it was clear plastic. Inside was what appeared to be methamphetamine, and he was asked what it was, and he said it was meth. The search and admission was lawful. King v. State<\/a>, 2014 Ark. App. 81, 2014 Ark. App. LEXIS 145 (February 12, 2014).<\/p>\n Meritless search and seizure claim can\u2019t support post-conviction petition. Boatright v. State<\/a>, 2014 Ark. 66 (February 13, 2014).*<\/p>\n Today is the 85th anniversary of the Valentine’s Day Massacre<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading