M.D.Pa.: 14 yo kidnapping victim’s 911 call created exigency for def’s cell phone seizure

A 14-year-old kidnapping victim called 911 that she was taken three days earlier, and defendant was finally detained as a result. His phone was seized and a warrant obtained. The seizure of the warrant was reasonable based on all the police knew, and the search warrant was issued with probable cause. Child porn of the kidnap victim was found and not suppressed. United States v. Watson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188593 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022).

Defendant was talking to a teenage friend in a park when he was surrounded by three officers on bikes who started questioning him. They learned he was a convicted sex offender and couldn’t be in the park. Two years later he was charged. He pled his Sixth Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court agreed on the Sixth Amendment. The dissent’s full discussion of his Fourth Amendment rights is essentially agreed to, but it is unnecessary to decide. He was seized in the park when he was surrounded by officers and no reasonable person would have thought he was free to leave. State v. Hintze, 2022 Utah App. LEXIS 121 (Oct. 14, 2022).*

It is unclear why the affiant officer didn’t include the source of a cell phone number in the affidavit for the search warrant, but it doesn’t defeat probable cause on the totality. It wasn’t bad enough to apply the exclusionary rule. State v. Bedsore, 2022-Ohio-3693, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3492 (12th Dist. Oct. 17, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.