{"id":61771,"date":"2025-08-25T09:14:18","date_gmt":"2025-08-25T14:14:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61771"},"modified":"2025-08-25T09:15:31","modified_gmt":"2025-08-25T14:15:31","slug":"il-reasonable-to-believe-def-had-cell-phone-with-him-in-car-when-shooting-occurred","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=61771","title":{"rendered":"IL: Reasonable to believe def had cell phone with him in car when shooting occurred"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It was a reasonable conclusion that defendant\u2019s cell phone would have information about this shooting incident. It was reasonable to believe that he had his phone when driving. The time period was also reasonably limited. People v. Terrell<\/a>, 2025 IL App (3d) 240567, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 1042 (Aug. 22, 2025):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Finally, defendant maintains that, even if the above facts established that he was present in the offending vehicle at the time of the shooting, the complaining officer improperly assumed that he was in possession of his cell phone at the time and that his phone records contained evidence of the offense. We disagree. Initially, it is a reasonable, commonsense inference that defendant was in possession of his cell phone while in his car. See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 395 (2014) (“Now it is the person who is not carrying a cell phone, with all that it contains, who is the exception.”). Moreover, German’s affidavit reflects more than an assumption that the cell phone records would show evidence related to the January 15, 2022, shooting, stating that, based upon his training and experience, obtaining a subject’s cell phone records and call detail records may assist in determining the location of the mobile device, routes of travel, and communication to other involved individuals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It was a reasonable conclusion that defendant\u2019s cell phone would have information about this shooting incident. It was reasonable to believe that he had his phone when driving. The time period was also reasonably limited. People v. Terrell, 2025 IL … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61771","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-probable-cause"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61771","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=61771"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61771\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61774,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61771\/revisions\/61774"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=61771"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=61771"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=61771"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}