The court\u2019s credibility determination is that defendant did not revoke his consent after admittedly consenting. The seizure of his cell phone incident to arrest was valid because there was reason to believe there was evidence in it. Thus, the later search of the phone with the warrant was valid. United States v. Thomas, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15073 (D.Nev. Feb. 5, 2016).<\/p>\n
The officer here was investigating an open door on a vacant house known for drugs. He stopped defendant and another coming to the house with a flashlight and asked for ID because he found that suspicious. On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion. State v. Ballinger<\/a>, 2016 MT 30, 2016 Mont. LEXIS 29 (Feb. 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n Defendant consented to a search of his person. Also, the officer once reached for defendant\u2019s jacket and immediately felt a gun. United States v. Richardson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176026 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 1, 2015),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15905 (N.D.Ga. Feb. 10, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The court\u2019s credibility determination is that defendant did not revoke his consent after admittedly consenting. The seizure of his cell phone incident to arrest was valid because there was reason to believe there was evidence in it. Thus, the later … Continue reading