{"id":24015,"date":"2016-10-09T09:39:12","date_gmt":"2016-10-09T14:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=24015"},"modified":"2016-10-09T09:39:12","modified_gmt":"2016-10-09T14:39:12","slug":"dc-inevitable-discovery-applied-to-cell-phone-search-in-2002-rather-than-gfe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=24015","title":{"rendered":"DC: Inevitable discovery applied to cell phone search in 2002 rather than GFE"},"content":{"rendered":"

Inevitable discovery used to justify a search of a cell phone in 2002 because it might have been unreasonable under Riley from 2014 (no mention of good faith exception applied to pre-Riley searches). Logan v. United States<\/a>, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 372 (Oct. 6, 2016):
\n<\/p>\n

It is clear from the sequence of events that at the time Garvey searched appellant’s cell phone an active investigation into the murders of Mika and Ms. Druyard was already underway and that appellant was a suspect. The police had reason to investigate a phone call made at 3 p.m. on the afternoon before the murders that caused appellant to become enraged. Furthermore, billing records already obtained during the authorized search of appellant’s residence provided appellant’s cell phone number, thus completing the gathering of information the police needed to apply for a subpoena of appellant’s phone records. Detective Garvey testified that police protocol dictates that “in cases in which [police] learn[] … that a suspect had been using a cell phone … [they] issue a subpoena asking for cell phone records.” This is sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellant’s cell phone records would inevitably have been obtained by lawful means and that the two witnesses Garvey contacted using information from appellant’s cell phone, would inevitably have been discovered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Inevitable discovery used to justify a search of a cell phone in 2002 because it might have been unreasonable under Riley from 2014 (no mention of good faith exception applied to pre-Riley searches). Logan v. United States, 2016 D.C. App. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,11,68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-good-faith-exception","category-inevitable-discovery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24015","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24015"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24015\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24016,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24015\/revisions\/24016"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}