KY: 21-month delay for SW for cell phone not unreasonable where def in custody

Officers had probable cause and nexus and showed particularity to defendant’s cell phone. He’d previously been accused of recording undressed women and was involved in an upskirting. Here he’d been accused of sex with drugged women and recording some of it. The fourth warrant for the phone was 21 months after it was seized, and defendant had a reduced privacy interest in it for the duration because, as an inmate, he couldn’t possess it. Harvey v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 34 (Jan. 24, 2023).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress against this otherwise reasonable inventory search. United States v. Hensley, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236478 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 29, 2022)* (court also assumed deficient performance to go to the second prong; but that’s not necessary).

Defendant wasn’t entitled to a Texas rule 38.23 jury instruction on illegally obtained evidence where the only testimony was that he was reasonably detained. No fact dispute, no instruction. Ford v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 398 (Tex. App. — Texarkana Jan. 24, 2023).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Inventory, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.