IN: State rule that consent to search carries with it a right to consult counsel doesn’t apply to police in another state acting on their own

Conflict of laws: Indiana’s Pirtle rule that consent searches afford a right to consult with counsel doesn’t apply to police in another state that encounter defendant and get consent to search. Mendenhall v. State, 2026 Ind. App. LEXIS 81 (Mar. 12, 2026).

Defendant badly wrecked his car fleeing from the police. Six months later, defense counsel told the FBI that defendant didn’t want it, so the FBI searched it finding his cell phone. That showed he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it and the contents. United States v. Peterson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7569 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026).*

2254 petitioner claimed he satisfied the Stone exception for “sham legal process” recognized by the Sixth Circuit, but he shows nothing to support it. McGee v. Warden, Belmont Corr. Inst., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52413 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Cell phones, Conflict of laws, Consent, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.