A cell tower dump isn\u2019t CSLI, so actual probable cause isn\u2019t required. Here, however, there was. In re United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128532 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFinally, the gratuitous physical aggression at the scene cannot be ignored. As Government counsel acknowledged at oral argument, Officer Chumbe was \u2018out of control,\u2019 and he is among the officers peppering Defendant with questions throughout the interaction. As Government counsel noted, the confession did not result from actual physical coercion, but the bar is not so low. Considering the totality of the circumstances, though relying primarily on the absence of Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation began, I find the Government has failed to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s statements at the scene were spontaneously made and voluntary. \u2026 I accordingly recommend that the Motion be granted with respect to Defendant’s pre-Miranda statements.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128862 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, the Court agrees that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his cell phone. Again, Defendant’s individual characteristics-like his age, intelligence and education, lack of intoxication, waiver of his Miranda rights, and experience with the protections afforded by the legal system-all indicate voluntariness.\u201d United States v. Hudson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128916 (D. Neb. July 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A cell tower dump isn\u2019t CSLI, so actual probable cause isn\u2019t required. Here, however, there was. In re United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128532 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2024).* \u201cFinally, the gratuitous physical aggression at the scene cannot be … Continue reading