The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
New Jersey Appellate Court Denies Motion to Suppress Warrantless Disabling of Cell Phone Lock
February 27, 2020
Last Friday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issued a decision, State v. K.D.c, No. A-3080-17T1, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 372 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2020) affirming a decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence police seized during a cell phone search. The Court held putting a cell phone in airplane mode and disabling the lock on the phone was unlawful. However, citing the decision of the Supreme Court of United States in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because no data was taken from the phone. "The cell phone itself cannot be suppressed because police seized it during a lawful search incident to arrest and no data was taken during the unlawful entry." Id. at *21.
In its per curiam decision, the Court noted that the Riley decision recommended that police disconnect a cell phone from a network to avoid remote wiping. The Defendant did not challenge a post seizure search of the phone pursuant to a Communications Data Warrant which located evidence used in the government's case.