SC: Exigency for CSLI was shooting victim left for dead and defendant was armed and dangerous

There was exigency for CSLI. “Thus, this was not a standard criminal investigation seeking cell phone data; rather, this request sought to address an ongoing emergency because Carter was potentially armed and dangerous, had been involved in a violent crime only hours prior to the request, and left his co-conspirator for dead when he fled Hahn Village.” State v. Carter, 2022 S.C. App. LEXIS 125 (Nov. 30, 2022).

A shots fired call at a Wells Fargo location to 911 with a caller’s name and details, corroboration of details at the scene, and other suspicious actions of the car justified the stop. United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214890 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2022).*

Defendant’s suppression hearing was before the state supreme court decided in 2020 that state law would no longer track the automobile exception. His preservation of that issue wasn’t preserved and won’t be decided. Commonwealth v. Arias, 2022 PA Super 202, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 468 (Nov. 30, 2022).*

Evasiveness and the smell of marijuana coupled with a potentially injured person inside was exigency for a warrantless entry to evaluate. A warrant was finally issued a few hours later. United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33024 (3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading, Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.