N.D.Ohio: Cell phone next to seized drugs was nexus for SW

“In sum, the search warrant affidavit contained considerably more than the mere fact that Bell was arrested with the cell phone on his person. Rather, law enforcement found the cell phone on Bell’s person near ‘the very drugs’ he has been charged with possessing, Merriweather, 728 F.App’x at 506, and along with a digital scale and cash, which are ‘tools of the [drug] trade.’ United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634, 637 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the search warrant affidavit contained sufficient probable cause to search Bell’s cell phone. See United States v. Lavallis, 515 F. Supp. 3d 686, 691 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (concluding that ‘probable cause to search a cell phone exists simply because cell phones discovered in proximity to crime or contraband almost invariably contain incriminating evidence’).” United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146061 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2024).

The CI’s statement was sufficiently corroborated by the officers to show probable cause. United States v. Burrell, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20652 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*

Just because the jailer here slammed the door on plaintiff’s hand, unless it was objectively unreasonable, there is no liability. Plaintiff can’t show that it was intentional or reckless. Acosta v. Williamson Cty., No. 23-50777, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20677 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Nexus, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.