NC: Potential for destruction of car keys was not exigency here

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a house he was visiting along with others late at night. When the police knocked, he answered the door, and that connoted some control over the premises. His disclaimer of ownership of some property came after illegal police conduct in a warrantless entry at night without exigent circumstances. Potential destruction of car keys was the claimed exigency. State v. Jordan, 2022-NCCOA-215, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 225 (Apr. 5, 2022).

On the affidavits as a whole, “Detectives Fassler and Dear had arguable probable cause, so they did not violate Mr. Sabeerin’s clearly established constitutional rights, and the district court properly granted them summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim.” Sabeerin v. Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9071 (10th Cir. Apr. 6, 2022).*

Failure to execute a cell phone search warrant within the time period specified by statute is not a constitutional violation warranting suppression of evidence. The warrant did not get stale in the meantime. Walker v. Commonwealth, 2022 Va. App. LEXIS 89 (Apr. 5, 2022).

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Probable cause, Standing, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.