CADC: When searching a cell phone and officers find it belonged to someone else, a new SW isn’t required; SWs are directed at things, places, and people and owner doesn’t matter for PC

Officers seized a cell phone from Thorne, a suspected narcotics and firearms trafficker. In a search under a warrant, the officers found out the phone actually belonged to defendant. Warrants are directed at things, and that didn’t require them to stop and get another warrant showing that. United States v. Hutchings, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10369 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 30, 2024).

Defendant’s stop followed the officer seeing a badly cracked windshield and then running the LPN which revealed unpaid tolls. The stop was valid. United States v. Partridge, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77120 (D. Me. Apr. 29, 2024).*

The parties stipulated to the facts of the stop, and that included that there was reasonable suspicion to believe that it was based on a hand-to-hand drug transaction. The trial court left that out of the written order, but it was stipulated to. State v. O’Day, 2024-Ohio-1654 (3d Dist. Apr. 29, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.