Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was stopped for driving with expired registration tags. The officer also learned that D’s license had been suspended. The officer impounded D’s car, and another officer conducted an inventory search of the car. D was arrested for possession of concealed and loaded firearms when that search turned up two handguns under the car’s hood. The officer seized a cell phone from D’s pants pocket. The phone was a “smartphone.” A detective specializing in gangs further examined the contents of the phone looking for incriminating evidence mainly because gang members are stupid and record a lot of criminal deeds on their phones. From the evidence, Police connected D to other crimes. D moved to suppress the cell phone data as violative of the 4th Amendment. The court rejected the argument. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review.
In the second case, Wurie (D) was arrested for a drug deal. At the station, the officers seized two cell phones. The phone was repeatedly receiving calls from a source identified as “my house.” They next used an online phone directory to trace that phone number to an apartment building. They got a search warrant and, upon later executing the warrant, found and seized 215 grams of crack cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a firearm and ammunition, and cash. Wurie (D) moved to suppress the evidence but was denied and was convicted. A divided panel of the First Circuit reversed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co