Search incident of cell phone during a traffic stop was valid with probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence of a crime. United States v. Zaavedra, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174493 (N.D. Okla. December 9, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Several district courts in other circuits have held that officers may search the contents of a cell phone seized during a traffic stop as long as there is probable cause to believe the phone contained evidence of a crime. See United States v. Garcia-Aleman, 2010 WL 2635071 (E.D. Tex., June 9, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 2635073 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2010); United States v. Monson-Perez, 2010 WL 889833 (E.D. Mo. March 8, 2010); United States v. James, 2008 WL 1925032 (E.D. Mo. April 29, 2008), aff’d in part on other grounds, 618 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ball, 2005 WL 2649496 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 14, 2005), aff’d on other grounds, 499 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 129 S. Ct. 2049 (2009); United States v. Cole, 2010 WL 3210963 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 11, 2010).<\/p>\n
The court finds, based on the record at the evidentiary hearing, that there was probable cause to believe the cell phones contained evidence of a crime. Further, the court finds that officers had reason to believe there was a risk that the evidence could be destroyed by remote means. See United States v. Flores-Lopez, 670 F.3d 803, 807-810 (7th Cir. 2012) (discussing technological tools available for remote wiping of data on cellular phones). Finally, the court concludes the holdings in Fierros-Alavarez and Rocha, as well as the other district court cases cited, to be persuasive and holds that the warrantless search of the cell phones found in defendant’s vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading