Defense Attorney on Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed

 Search and Seizure, Motion to Suppress Evidence, Cell Phone, Cell Phone Search, Search incident to arrest, text messages

Search and Seizure, Motion to Suppress Evidence, Cell Phone, Cell Phone Search, Search incident to arrest, text messages

Cell Phone Search Suppressed

Cell Phone Search | Evidence Suppressed

Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer notes a recent Cell Phone Search ruling on a Motion to Suppress Evidence, filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Search and seizure law can apply to cell phones. Lately cops have been searching the phones and calling them a Search incident to arrest. Sometimes cops claim they need to search a phone for the safety of the officer. One court just ruled that a cell phone seized incident to defendant’s arrest posed no risk to officer safety. The scope of a search has been limited, since a cellular telephone is not a container that could hold weapon. Sometimes police justify a search claiming that evidence will be destroyed. A court just ruled that once a phone was seized, there was no longer risk that defendant could destroy evidence in phone. The court concluded that a warrantless search of contents of cell phone was unlawful and a Motion to Suppress was granted.

Cell Phone Search Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Defense alleged an unlawful search of the Defendant’s cellular telephone including: texts, pictures, the call history, and/or observations made by Officer. Testimony showed cop “found the Defendant’s cell phone while searching his person at the scene, but then later examined the cell phone further at the police station while the Defendant was still being processed. Officer Clark testified that he found text messages regarding the sale of cocaine while he was looking through the Defendant’s phone.”

Cell Phone Court Ruling

Court ruled, “When an officer arrests someone who has a cell phone in their possession, here may very well be reason to suspect that the phone contains valuable information, particularly in drug-related arrests. The call logs and address books could help link a defendant to a particular drug transaction and could provide the identities of other persons involved in the illegal activity; however, these are exactly the types of situations where probable cause could be used to obtain a warrant. The reality is that most information stored on a cell phone will remain there long enough for a warrant to be secured and that numbers “lost” from recent call lists are readily obtainable from the service provider. Cell phones are outside the ambit of the search incident to arrest exception‘s reach because of their capacity for storing vast quantities of intimately personal data. If courts continue to allow the unfettered exploration of this personal data, then courts are permitting the government to execute an unwarranted search of the cell phone user’s life and habits. This intrusion cannot reasonably be justified by the rationales of officer safety and evidence preservation; therefore, a simple seizure of the cell phone must suffice until a warrant can be procured.”

The Court’s Ruling on the Cell Phone Search is Here.

Cell Phone Search Questions? Call Me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Source: FLWSUPP 1805GLAS

Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer

Tampa Attorney on Search and Seizure | Incident to Arrest | Vehicle

Search Incident to Arrest, Vehicle Search, Incident to arrest, Search and Seizure,

Search Incident to Arrest, Vehicle Search

Search and Seizure Vehicle Glovebox

Court tossed the Evidence seized in the Car

“The cop said he saw “furtive movements” near the glove box.”

For this Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and seizure of a vehicle glove box has been the subject of a recent research project. Vehicles are frequently searched Incident to arrest. One court ruled that Police could not reasonably believe there would be evidence relevant to crime of fleeing and eluding found in a vehicle’s glove compartment. The cop said he saw “furtive movements” near the glove box. The cops claimed officer safety concerns. The court found  at time of the vehicle search, the defendant was handcuffed, not near the car, and in the custody of backup officers. The trial court tossed the evidence seized in the car and the appeals court agreed.

Search and Seizure Questions? Ask me 813-222-2220 .

Source: 35 Fla. L. Weekly D533b