Law enforcement officers with probable cause do not need a search warrant to seize a cell phone, such as in a search incident situation where they know that the phone was used to arrange drug deals, but they most probably need a search warrant to search it, and that’s a separate question. \u201cIt is undisputed that the IMEI number on the phone seized from Adekoya was inscribed on the phone’s rear exterior, and that no protective case enclosed the phone, so that the IMEI number was visible to the naked eye. As such, it falls easily within the category of the phone’s \u2018physical aspects\u2019 [under Riley] that are subject to examination without a warrant.\u201d United States v. Adekoya, 2014 DNH 236P, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160218 (D. N.H. November 12, 2014).<\/p>\n
The trial court\u2019s ruling on lack of consent for a blood draw is supported by the evidence. The trial court erred, however, in concluding there was no probable cause, and the case is remanded. State v. Reynolds<\/a>, 2014 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1024 (November 12, 2014).*<\/p>\n The district court discounted the officer\u2019s credibility about the initial cause for following the defendant\u2019s van for crossing the fog line and suppressed. The video, however, showed an independent basis for the stop for that same offense, and that made the trial court\u2019s findings clearly erroneous. United States v. Rosales-Giron<\/a>, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21665 (5th Cir. November 14, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Law enforcement officers with probable cause do not need a search warrant to seize a cell phone, such as in a search incident situation where they know that the phone was used to arrange drug deals, but they most probably … Continue reading