The officer picking up defendant\u2019s cell phone and the screen lighting up was not a search. It was inadvertent, and the phone had to be picked up to do anything with it. Even if it was, the exclusionary rule should not apply because that was inadvertent. Defendant\u2019s argument that the search of phone under a warrant was overbroad fails because he doesn\u2019t analyze it, he just states it. The court won’t make his argument for him. United States v. Garcia, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15632 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 26, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe State contends that defendant’s unusual conduct in visiting Vernieri two days before the murder, the disparities in his account of the visit, his assertion that he slept until 11:00 a.m. on the date of the murder even though cell phone records placed his phone behind Vernieri’s home at 10:39 a.m., Logan’s statement that he heard a shriek from downstairs between 10:10 and 10:30 a.m., and defendant’s statement that he visited the Van Winkle property on the date of the murder, provided a sufficient basis for the search warrant.\u201d It did. State v. Rochat<\/a>, 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 10 (Jan. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The officer picking up defendant\u2019s cell phone and the screen lighting up was not a search. It was inadvertent, and the phone had to be picked up to do anything with it. Even if it was, the exclusionary rule should … Continue reading