CA6: SW for cell phone based on PC defeats § 1983 case over phone search

“Professional hunter William ‘Spook’ Spann sued his former employee and several officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his constitutional rights during an investigation into his hunting practices. The district court dismissed Spann’s suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm. [¶] Spann leads hunting parties on properties around his home in Dickson County, Tennessee, and formerly hosted a hunting program, ‘Spook Nation,’ on the Pursuit television network.” Spann had been prosecuted for federal hunting misdemeanors, and he posted on Facebook information that suggested others would occur in violation of his probation saying no hunting for six months. “Officers from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (‘Wildlife’) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had anticipated Spann’s premature return to hunting.” State wildlife officers set up cameras in his open fields to record what was going on there. “In June 2013, Spann’s probation officer told the district court in Kansas that Spann had violated the terms of his probation. The court ordered that Spann spend 30 days in custody during nights and weekends and barred him from hunting anywhere in the world until August 2014. Spann, 963 F. Supp. 2d at 1212. Then, in February 2014, Tennessee charged Spann with several state crimes. In connection with the state investigation, Wildlife officers executed a warrant to search Spann’s home and seize his cell phone.” He sued and lost. The search warrant for his cell phone in his house was based on probable cause. Spann v. Carter, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9197 (6th Cir. May 17, 2016).*