MA: Police answering call to seized cell phone was unreasonable without SW

Defendant’s cell phone was seized by the police. A call came in about 74 minutes later, and it was answered. The state could have obtained a search warrant before that and did not, and it didn’t show that it couldn’t. Police answering the phone lacked exigent circumstances, nor was answering the phone valid under inventory. Commonwealth v. Barrett, 2020 Mass. App. LEXIS 52 (May 14, 2020).

Suppression hearing testimony from the officer that he was told that defendant was driving a car that was seized does nothing to prove defendant’s standing to challenge the seizure and search of the car. State v. Ayers, 2020-Ohio-2943, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1887 (8th Dist. May 14, 2020).