OH4: Return of cell phone denied; it’s still potential evidence, and part of delay is refusing to give passcode

“Based on our review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Smith’s motion for return of his electronic devices. At the time of Smith’s request, it appears that the property was still being held by the Attorney General’s Office for a lawful purpose, an active investigation. As previously discussed, Smith has not shown that information contained on his devices was materially exculpatory. Furthermore, as previously discussed, it was Smith’s own lack of diligence in retrieving the information long before the first trial date was established, along with his later lack of cooperation in providing passwords, which could have resulted in the devices being returned, which caused his inability to regain possession of the items.” State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-5168, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3879 (4th Dist. Oct. 18, 2024).

A motel operator doesn’t have standing to contest searches of individuals who rent from him. Patel v. City of L.A., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195589 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2024).*

“The Court concludes that a reasonable officer in the position of Detective Altendorfer could believe that the information provided by the corroborated CRI was not stale and afforded a sufficient basis to believe that evidence of an ongoing drug trafficking operation would be found as a result of the dog sniff of the Residence’s door.” United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195172 (D. Minn. Oct. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Informant hearsay, Privileges, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.