Defendant consented to a search of his vehicle and cell phones were seized, and it took a long time for the government to get search warrants for the cell phones, which were evidence of a crime. The delay did not require suppression. United States v. Franklin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73692 (N.D. Ga. April 27, 2012), adopted in part 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73714 (N.D. Ga. May 25, 2012):<\/p>\n
For all of the reasons stated above, Mitchell [United States v. Mitchell<\/a>, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009)] is distinguishable from the instant case and does not provide a basis for the suppression of Boykins’s cell phones.4 See United States v. Emanuel, 440 F. App’x 881, 885-86 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Because Emanuel gave his voluntary consent to the seizure and search of his computer, Mitchell is inapposite”); United States v. Stabile<\/a>, 633 F.3d 219, 235 (3d Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Mitchell because the warrantless seizures in Mitchell were based on probable cause and not consent).<\/p>\n
4 Boykins also relies heavily on United States v. Shaw, No. 1:11-cr-239-29-CAP-ECS, 2012 WL 844075 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 10, 2012), adopted by 2012 WL 843919 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2012) [here<\/a>](granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence where search warrant was not obtained until three months after cell phones were seized). However, Shaw is distinguishable because the seizure in that case was based on a search incident to arrest rather than consent. To the extent that Shaw is not distinguishable, I disagree with it and choose not to follow it. [The USDJ disagrees with this footnote.]\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading