NC: No standing in someone else’s cell phone pinged to find defendant

Defendant used someone else’s cell phone and officers pinged it to find him. He had no standing for the borrowed phone. After arrest, he admitted the shooting in a jail call. “Defendant’s temporary use of the phone does not automatically create an expectation of privacy, and we do not assume ownership or a possessory interest in the phone based on mere possession.” State v. Escalante, 2025 N.C. App. LEXIS 908 (Dec. 17, 2025).

Statute requires lane changes be done safely, and there’s no legal basis for a “two second rule,” so the stop was unreasonable. There was no proof that it was unsafe. And a good faith mistake of law doesn’t save it either. State v. Carter, 2025 Kan. App. LEXIS 56 (Dec. 19, 2025).*

Franks claim fails: “The undersigned finds that the modified affidavit, albeit far from ideal, is sufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit need not provide a great case for probable cause, and it need not be perfect.” United States v. Wells, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 262797 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 22, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.