41-day delay between seizure of cell phone and its search, while not good, wasn\u2019t constitutionally unreasonable under all the circumstances, primarily because defendant was in custody and couldn\u2019t use the phone anyway, so it didn\u2019t intrude on his possessory interests. United States v. McNeely, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97094 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2019).<\/p>\n
Brandishing a firearm at a crowd and retreating into a house was sufficient for exigency for a warrantless entry. Defendant\u2019s regular visiting of the premises was so extensive he was an effective subtenant. He had a key, kept clothes there, and he visited at will and spent the night. United States v. Leonard, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97917 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97100 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
41-day delay between seizure of cell phone and its search, while not good, wasn\u2019t constitutionally unreasonable under all the circumstances, primarily because defendant was in custody and couldn\u2019t use the phone anyway, so it didn\u2019t intrude on his possessory interests. … Continue reading