W.D.Mo.: How long is too long a wait for search of a seized cell phone: reasonableness controls

“A seizure reasonable at its inception because it is based upon probable cause may become unreasonable as a result of its duration. The duration of the seizure pending the issuance of a search warrant must still be reasonable, and reasonableness is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances. There is unfortunately no bright line past which a delay becomes unreasonable. Thus, in some contexts, a delay as short as 90 minutes may be unreasonable, while in other contexts, a delay of over three months may be reasonable.” Here, the 12 day delay was reasonable because the investigation was still ongoing. United States v. Bradley, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128990 (W.D. Mo. July 12, 2021).

“[W]ith Rakas still being good law, the Court is bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent that holds that a passenger with no possessory interest in the vehicle lacks standing to challenge the search of the interior of that vehicle. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2018) ….” United States v. Markeith, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129159 (N.D. Ga. May 19, 2021).*

The body camera video here showed that defendant was likely armed by the “L-shaped” object in his pants pulling on them. “Drawing on his experience, Officer Davis concluded that the object was a firearm based on its size, shape, and weight. That was a reasonable conclusion, grounded in Officer Davis’s experience and ‘common sense.’ Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418.” United States v. Murray, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129174 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Reasonableness, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.