Defendant was arrested for sex trafficking with minors. His cell phone was seized incident to his arrest from his car. The search of the cell phone could not be sustained under inventory, the automobile exception, exigent circumstances, or plain view. Granted, warrantless searches have been sustained in cases involving drug crimes, but this isn\u2019t. United States v. Davis, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38319 (D. Ore. April 7, 2011).<\/p>\n
The video of the dog sniff supported the officer\u2019s testimony that the dog alerted. Defendant\u2019s expert said that it didn\u2019t. The video does not contradict the claim that there were \u201chandler cues.\u201d United States v. Olivares-Rodriguez<\/a>, 415 Fed. Appx. 734 (8th Cir. 2011) (unpublished), affg 729 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Iowa 2010).*<\/p>\n The CI was corroborated. His information about seeing a gun in defendant\u2019s house \u201cwithin the last month\u201d was not stale because guns are kept and not quickly transferred or used up. United States v. Donald, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38255 (E.D. Ky. April 6, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading