Defendant\u2019s 12 cell phones could be seized as instrumentalities of a drug crime under a search warrant. Calling a number the officers obtained during a wiretap to identify a phone was not an illegal search. Turning on the phones just to see if one answered was not a search, and there was no separate search of the phones. United States v. Pacheco, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184000 (W.D. N.Y. September 22, 2014).<\/p>\n
New Mexico declines to adopt a reasonable suspicion standard for border searches under the state constitution. State v. Sanchez<\/a>, 2015 N.M. LEXIS 152 (May 28, 2015)* [That would also be an exercise in futility because all border search cases would go federal and some not sent to the state courts].<\/p>\n The arresting officer here was not \u201cplainly incompetent\u201d for arresting plaintiff for possession of marijuana based on seeing two marijuana leaves. They lab tested negative for THC, which is not unheard of. The officer still gets qualified immunity. \u201cBecause the Constitution \u2018does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested,\u2019 New’s assertion that he was not in possession of marijuana \u2018is largely irrelevant.\u2019 Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979).\u201d New v. Denver<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8913 (8th Cir. May 29, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s 12 cell phones could be seized as instrumentalities of a drug crime under a search warrant. Calling a number the officers obtained during a wiretap to identify a phone was not an illegal search. Turning on the phones just … Continue reading