There were exigent circumstances for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone because of the possibility of the phone being remotely erased or thrown away. Then defendant denied knowledge of the password or ownership of the phone, and that showed a lack of standing. United States v. Harris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48445 (E.D.Va. April 8, 2016).<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, for reasons not disclosed in the record, appellants filed only a [Texas] no-evidence motion for summary judgment on their affirmative defense of qualified immunity. This motion was not an appropriate procedural vehicle for establishing their affirmative defense without a trial.\u201d Haver v. Coats<\/a>, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 3701 (Tex.App. \u2013 Houston (14th Dist.) April 12, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There were exigent circumstances for seizure of defendant\u2019s cell phone because of the possibility of the phone being remotely erased or thrown away. Then defendant denied knowledge of the password or ownership of the phone, and that showed a lack … Continue reading