A CI told the police defendant had sexually explicit pictures of children on his cell phone, which defendant had shown the CI. Officers talked to two girls who were in the pictures who confirmed their identity. Officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances to seize the cell phone to secure it to get a search warrant to search it. The officers were concerned that the CI might have a change of heart and tipoff the defendant who could then have the opportunity to erase the pictures. A six day delay (including a weekend) in obtaining a search warrant for the cell phone was not unreasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Burgard, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9893 (S.D. Ill. February 2, 2011).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s refusal to talk to the police in jail after being Mirandized did not amount to a refusal to consent to a search. So, his roommate’s later consent was not over his denial of consent under Randolph. United States v. Trainor, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10315 (D. N.D. January 26, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was on parole, and he was at a friend\u2019s house to stay for a while. \u201cWhile Mr. Lowe has argued that he was merely an overnight guest at the house and thus the prospective consent didn\u2019t apply, the Court finds that Mr. Lowe had made the house his home by the time of the search.\u201d Alternatively, there was consent. United States v. Lowe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10342 (S.D. Ind. February 2, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading