Middle District of Tennessee holds Iphones in plain view can be seized during a lawful arrest or encounter.

This order deals with a number of issues dealing with a number of defendants. The sole issue relevant here for this blog is the discussion of Carpenter and Riley in the contexts of requests for suppression of smart phones based on the idea that they were unlawfully seized.

The Court, in denying the motion, cited the plain view doctrine because the Supreme Court’s requirement in Coolidge v. New Hampshire that the incriminating nature of seized items be immediately apparent was satisified, citing a long string of cases, repeated here: United States v. Conlan, 786 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Key, 889 F.3d 910, 913 (7th Cir. 2018); United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163, 180 (2d Cir. 2017); (“the business of illegal drug commerce is conducted on cellphones.” United States v. Hall, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1313 (D. Colo. 2009) ; see also, United States v. Hammett, 555 F. App’x 108, 110 (2d Cir. 2014) ; United States v. Portalla, 496 F.3d 23, 27 (1st Cir. 2007); United States v. Hernandez, 17 F. App’x 464, 467 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 F. App’x 827, 832 (10th Cir. 2001); United States v. Titington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195859, 2018 WL 6019649; (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 16, 2018); United States v. Delva, 13 F.Supp.3d 269, 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); United States v. Reyes, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7639, 2007 WL 419636 (D. Conn. Jan. 30, 2007).

The case is United States v. Darden, 353 F. Supp. 3d 697,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207956, (M.D. TN) December 10, 2018.

Related Posts
  • Fighting Google Keyword Warrants Read More
  • Three new cases coming up that will affect Carpenter litigation, all in Massachusetts. Read More
  • Northern District of Georgia invokes good faith exception re: CSLI based on court order due to binding 11th Circuit precedent. Read More