NY Kings Co.: The logic that people always have their cell phones on them is enough for nexus to get this SW

Defendant was arrested two days after a shooting. A search warrant was obtained for his cell phone. He resisted because there was no allegation he had the phone on him at the time of the shooting. Essentially, people always have their cell phones on them, and that’s nexus enough. “Against this backdrop, this court finds that it was unnecessary for Detective Santiago to allege that defendant was holding or using his cell phone at the time of the crime, as a court of coordinate jurisdiction has also observed (see People v Williams, 79 Misc 3d 809, 817, 188 N.Y.S.3d 417 [Sup Ct Albany Co 2023] [notion that people always carry their cell phones sufficient to show nexus between suspect and cell phone], citing Carpenter, 138 S Ct 2206; Riley, 573 U.S. 373).” People v. Gaynor, 2023 NY Slip Op 23395, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 23096 (Kings Co. Dec. 18, 2023).

Defendant knew why he’d been detained (admitting “for talking to a minor”) and he wasn’t handcuffed. He consented to a search of his phone and social media accounts. At the suppression hearing over his Miranda waiver, he disclaimed the search suppression issue for the time being. The same factors apply, and the court concludes he consented. United States v. Velazquez-Perez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224026 (D.P.R. Dec. 15, 2023).*

Defendant’s motion to reconsider his suppression motion in the fifth day of trial is denied. The testimony is pretty much the same as the suppression hearing, and this isn’t the proper way to do it. United States v. Hernandez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224114 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Consent, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.