ND: It was unreasonable for police to think landowner who rented bedroom to another could consent to its search

Defendant stayed in a bedroom in another’s house, and he paid rent. It was unreasonable for officers to conclude that the homeowner could consent to search of the room. Also, the door to the room was closed when the police arrived. State v. Steele, 2023 ND 220, 2023 N.D. LEXIS 223 (Nov. 24, 2023).

Officers had information defendant had potential child pornography on his cell phone. When he was stopped a phone was found on him during a consent search. “[T]he district court appropriately determined that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of the cell phone. Officers responded to a report that Hagy had taken a nude photograph of a child.” United States v. Hagy, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31277 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2023).*

“Plaintiff’s vague assertion that the Fourth Amendment was violated because Defendants ‘broke state law’ in some unspecified manner is plainly inadequate to state a viable theory of a Fourth Amendment violation as to Plaintiff.” (That’s Virginia v. Moore.) Carrera v. Caviness, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209803 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209381 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.