\u201cIn sum, the search warrant affidavit contained considerably more than the mere fact that Bell was arrested with the cell phone on his person. Rather, law enforcement found the cell phone on Bell’s person near \u2018the very drugs\u2019 he has been charged with possessing, Merriweather, 728 F.App’x at 506, and along with a digital scale and cash, which are \u2018tools of the [drug] trade.\u2019 United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634, 637 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the search warrant affidavit contained sufficient probable cause to search Bell’s cell phone. See United States v. Lavallis, 515 F. Supp. 3d 686, 691 (E.D. Mich. 2021) (concluding that \u2018probable cause to search a cell phone exists simply because cell phones discovered in proximity to crime or contraband almost invariably contain incriminating evidence\u2019).\u201d United States v. Bell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146061 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CI\u2019s statement was sufficiently corroborated by the officers to show probable cause. United States v. Burrell, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20652 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Just because the jailer here slammed the door on plaintiff\u2019s hand, unless it was objectively unreasonable, there is no liability. Plaintiff can\u2019t show that it was intentional or reckless. Acosta v. Williamson Cty., No. 23-50777, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20677 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIn sum, the search warrant affidavit contained considerably more than the mere fact that Bell was arrested with the cell phone on his person. Rather, law enforcement found the cell phone on Bell’s person near \u2018the very drugs\u2019 he has … Continue reading