Defendant consented to a search of his car and his hotel room, but not to a search of his guitar case in the room. Thinking there might be drugs there, the officer seized the guitar case to preserve the potential evidence while he got a search warrant. There was no probable cause whatsoever to seize the guitar case or for the warrant. The claim of evidence preservation was based on lack of manpower and not a legal justification. The search also couldn\u2019t be justified by inevitable discovery. United States v. Montes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32969 (D. N.M. Feb. 25, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cEven assuming the officers improperly questioned Defendant about the PIN prior to providing a Miranda advisement, the contents of the phone were accessible through alternate, legal means. Thus, the inevitable discovery exception renders the phone’s contents admissible.\u201d The officers were able to access it with computer tools. United States v. Fischer, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32965 (D. Neb. Feb. 16, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant consented to a search of his car and his hotel room, but not to a search of his guitar case in the room. Thinking there might be drugs there, the officer seized the guitar case to preserve the potential … Continue reading