Defendant\u2019s denial of ownership of a cell phone in his car was not determinative of his standing to challenge its search. Actually, he was loaned the phone because his was broken, and he was legitimately in possession. The question posed to him (\u201cDo you own the phone?\u201d) did not determine standing. His denial of ownership was thus not abandonment. The warrantless search of the cell phone at the secondary checkpoint area north of Nogales was unreasonable. Neither search incident nor the automobile exception apply because there was no exigency. Inevitable discovery does not apply just because there may be probable cause; some effort at a warrant is required, and here there was apparently no intention of applying for a warrant. United States v. Alonso-Castaneda, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49547 (D. Ariz. April 14, 2015).<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s stop where he and a companion were walking in a high crime area, saw the police car, and were nervously looking at it. They ducked into a restaurant, but the officers could see that they weren\u2019t there as patrons\u2013they were hiding out there. If he’d been buying something, the officers wouldn’t have escorted him out. This was reasonable suspicion: \u201cSee State v. Barney, 97-777 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2\/25\/98), 708 So.2d 1205, where this Court found that presence in a high crime area, coupled with nervousness, startled behavior, flight or suspicious actions upon the approach of officers, is sufficient to justify an investigatory stop.\u201d State v. Bradstreet<\/a>, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 728 (La. App. 5 Cir. April 15, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s denial of ownership of a cell phone in his car was not determinative of his standing to challenge its search. Actually, he was loaned the phone because his was broken, and he was legitimately in possession. The question posed … Continue reading