The search of defendant\u2019s cell phone for text messages relating to a possible drug transaction that day was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment [with no detailed cell phone analysis; just applying basic principles], but excising that information from the search warrant affidavit did not change the outcome and the search warrant was still valid. United States v. Sams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73358 (S.D. Ga. June 29, 2010):<\/p>\n
The undersigned recognizes Scott’s testimony that cell phones are commonly used communications devices, particularly in situations involving criminal activity. However, the undersigned does not find that Scott’s searches of Washington’s cell phone–either at the time of her arrest, or later, when Scott was at the station house–fit within an exception to the warrant requirement. There was no evidence at the hearing that Scott had a reasonable belief that, had he not searched Washington’s cell phone without benefit of a warrant, evidence of alleged criminal activity would be destroyed. To the extent Scott could be considered conducting an inventory search, he merely had to note that Washington’s cell phone was taken from the traffic stop and was being held in the station’s property room. Finally, there is no evidence that exigent circumstances existed to justify Scott’s warrantless searches of Washington’s cell phone.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the undersigned finds that evidence obtained as a result of a search of Washington’s cell phone should not be subject to suppression. A review of the application for search warrant reveals that, even excising the information discovered during Scott’s search of Washington’s cell phone, the search warrant’s issuance is supported by probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
His arrest was with probable cause. United States v. Sams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73350 (S.D. Ga. June 29, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading