CA11: Lawyers were arrested for interfering with cell phone search

In a CPS-type case, there was a search warrant for two cell phones with alleged child pornography on them, and officers were going to execute them outside a hearing in the courthouse. Watching on surveillance video, officers saw the phones’ owners attorneys handling the phones and put them in briefcases. The lawyers were ultimately arrested for obstruction, but they were found not guilty. They sued for false arrest, but the officers get qualified immunity for the alleged false arrest. Garcia v. Casey, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 19533 (11th Cir. July 28, 2023).

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied for his lack of standing in the place searched. “Defendant’s motion papers did not contain sworn allegations that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched, and thus he failed to demonstrate that he had standing to challenge the search warrant and the ensuing search of the residence.” People v. Chavis, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4094 (4th Dept. July 29, 2023).* Same result: People v. Fernandez, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050 (4th Dept. July 29, 2023).*

Defendant’s tossing a bag of drugs under his car during a traffic stop was not the product of a prolonged stop. State v. Abdullahi, 2023 ME 41 (July 27, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Qualified immunity, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.