Defendant went to the police station to complain about threatening text messages received on his cell phone. He slid his phone through the slot in the glass to show the officer. While it was disputed whether the phone was open or closed and whether the text message was on the screen, the officer had to fumble with the phone to get the message to show. In the process, the officer stumbled upon a child pornography picture. Defendant had no expectation of privacy in the phone when he handed it over. United States v. Coates, 685 F. Supp. 2d 551 (M.D. Pa. 2010):<\/p>\n
Finding that the cellular phone was in a closed position when Coates handed it to Officer Persing, we cannot and do not find that Coates had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone. On August 13, 2008, Coates entered the Bloombsburg Police Station of his own free will and voluntarily gave control of his cellular phone to Officer Persing. Coates relinquished his phone to Officer Persing without manifesting any privacy concerns therein. Indeed, the only instruction Coates gave to Officer Persing was that the threatening message was in his text messages inbox. In rendering this instruction to Officer Persing, he did not, for example, indicate that other areas of the cellular phone were private, nor did he give Officer Persing precise instructions as to how to find the text message. Further, Coates was not compelled or forced to give Officer Persing his phone. By his own actions, Coates simply did not exhibit a reasonable expectation of prohibitions of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading