W.D.Pa.: Police officer can answer a dropped cell phone without violating 4A; that’s not a search

“Similarly, where an officer is legitimately in possession of a cell phone dropped at the scene of a crime and observes, in plain view, an incoming call arriving on the cell phone, the officer may lawfully answer the incoming call without violating the Fourth Amendment. The only thing the officer does to answer the incoming call is to push a button or swipe the cell phone interface. There is no other consequence, such as reviewing data or scrolling the phone for information, from answering the call. Thus, an officer lawfully holding a cell phone who answers an incoming call does not access the kinds of cell phone information that the Supreme Court highlighted as making a cell phone fundamentally different from other items a person may carry. See e.g., Riley, 573 U.S at 386, 393, 393-94, 394, 396-97, 400 (citing, in part, the cell phone’s vast storage capacity and the immense amount of personal information stored on a cell phone). Detective Maritz did not access or try to access any of the data within the cell phone. Therefore, there was no search of the cell phone.” United States v. Beasley, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191472 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2024).

Defendant left a gun in a police car and was found not to have abandoned it because there wasn’t disavowal of it. [One could disagree.] But that doesn’t matter because there was probable cause for his seizure so there was no fruit of the poisonous tree. “Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Falldorf and Officer Lee had probable cause to seize Defendant with the use of their weapons. Defendant need not actually fire his gun for probable cause to exist; the events leading up to the shooting, coupled with Defendant threatening the officers with a weapon, is sufficient. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11.” United States v. Martinez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191364 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2024).* [This one’s not going in the supplement. I don’t have any confidence it would survive appeal on abandonment. Few courts would be that generous.]

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

Comments are closed.