| 5th Circuit Court of Appeals |
|
Anyone conducting legal research on a particular topic or in a specific jurisdiction is advised to supplement these materials with their own efforts or those of a qualified attorney.If you have any suggestions for decisions that should be added to this list, please email them to me using the contact form. 2011United States v. Self, No. 09-51012 Summary Calendar (5th Cir. 1-14-2011) [Unpublished] -- Denial of Motion to Suppress Affirmed -- Defendant was convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack). Defendant was asked by two individuals to make a delivery of crack cocaine to a motel. Upon arriving, defendant saw police officers present, fled on foot, and was subsequently arrested. During a search of the vehicle, the defendant's iPhone was discovered. A search of the phone revealed calls between defendant and the drug customers at the motel. On appeal of his conviction, defendant challenged the district court's refusal to suppress the evidence retrieved from the iPhone. The Court of Appeals stated that once the defendant fled the scene, he "no longer had an expectation of privacy regarding the phone," and thus lacked standing to challenge the subsequent search. There was no error in the denial of the motion to suppress.U.S. v. Oliver, No. 09-10133 (5th Cir. 1-6-2011) -- Laptop Search Upheld -- Defendant was indicted with various co-conspirators for stealing personal identifying information of other individuals and using it to file fraudulent unemployment claims in Texas. During their investigation, law enforcement officers learned from a co-conspirator that the defendant had stashed a cardboard box box and laptop computer at his girlfriend's apartment, and they went there to retrieve them. Prior to their arrival, defendant's girlfriend opened the box in an effort to find contact information for the defendant, and she observed a variety of incriminating items, including multiple credit cards, ID cards, and tax documents. After police seized the box, they conducted a similar examination of its contents, and relied on what they observed to support their application for a search warrant to search defendant's computer. The search warrant was granted and incriminating evidence of false unemployment claims was recovered. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence retrieved from the laptop, arguing that the laptop was improperly seized and illegally searched prior to police obtaining a warrant. The Court of Appeals disagreed on both counts. The laptop and cardboard box, the Court said, were obtained through an independent source (i.e., information from a co-conspirator and testimony by defendant's girlfriend). Moreover, defendant's allegations that the police improperly searched the laptop prior to obtaining a search warrant were not supported by the evidence. The computer logs submitted by defendant simply verified the officer's testimony that when she handled the laptop, it came out of sleep mode and she then turned it off. The District Court's ruling on defendant's motion to suppress was upheld. 2009
2008
|
Please Donate
If you find the resources on this site interesting, or if they have saved you and your client time and money, please support CFD with a donation.
