{"id":2127,"date":"2008-06-03T07:39:39","date_gmt":"2008-06-03T07:39:39","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-03T07:39:39","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2127","title":{"rendered":"Canadian wiretap could not be challenged in U.S. court"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Canadian wiretap that assisted a prosecution here was not subject to a motion to suppress in the United States under Verdugo-Urquidez<\/em><\/a>. United States v. Smida, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42417 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Probable cause existed for defendant’s arrest. Because he premised his search incident of the cellphone on lack of probable cause for arrest, the question is left open. United States v. Gutierrez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42322 (D. N.M. January 4, 2008):<\/p>\n

The federal district court in United States v. Parada<\/em> has reasoned that an officer’s search of the cellular telephone memory for the numbers of incoming phone calls was a separate question supportable by exigent circumstances because the agent in that case was concerned about subsequent incoming calls erasing earlier stored numbers. See United States v. Parada<\/em>, 289 F.Supp.2d at 1303-1304. The United States bears the burden of proving exigency. See Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson<\/em>, 328 F.3d 1230, 1240 (10th Cir. 2003). One federal district court has found that the United States did not carry its burden to demonstrate exigency by a preponderance of the evidence where “[o]fficers did not search the [cellular] phones out of a concern for officer safety, or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence … [where] the purpose was purely investigatory.” United States v. Park<\/em>, 2007 WL 15211573 at * 8. Because Gutierrez relied upon a lack of probable cause for his suppression motion, the Court need not address the issue of whether the warrantless search of Gutierrez’ cellular telephone was justified. Gutierrez did not specifically request that the information obtained from his cellular telephone be suppressed or be suppressed for some reasons other than the lack of probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}