Defendant’s wife, who told police defendant was communicating with underage girls on his cell phone, told officers that she paid for the phone and was on the contract. So, viewed most favorably to the government, this was sufficient to establish access and control, and thus supported the officers\u2019 good faith basis to believe that the wife had apparent authority to consent to a seizure of the phone pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. In addition, defendant didn\u2019t object to the seizure of the phone when it occurred, and he could not later revoke his wife’s consent. Deputies worked reasonably diligently to present a warrant application for the phone\u2019s contents, and the delay was not so unreasonable as to violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. True, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19445 (6th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant’s wife, who told police defendant was communicating with underage girls on his cell phone, told officers that she paid for the phone and was on the contract. So, viewed most favorably to the government, this was sufficient to establish … Continue reading